Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Greater London

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he anticipates being in a position to make a statement of his views on the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I have now received replies from 108 local authorities. Almost all supported the two points that the boroughs and districts should be given greater powers, and that for some purposes Greater London needs to be treated as a single entity with an overall authority within the local government structure. Widely different views were expressed about the nature, area and functions of any such authority.
Opinion was almost equally divided for and against a directly elected council for Greater London. Many of the critics of it supported an alternative plan for a joint board to co-ordinate the activities of the county and county borough councils in a limited field: broad town planning questions, co-ordination of overspill, major traffic matters and planning of main roads.
Along with other Ministers I am studying all the replies in detail, and will make a further statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Iremonger: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. While he is studying this matter with his right hon. Friends, will he give consideration to a point which is outside the terms of

reference of the Royal Commission, namely, the desirability of putting London transport under the authority of the overall authority for London?

Mr. Brooke: That is a different question. I take note of my hon. Friend's idea, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will take note of it, but I do not know what view he will take.

Festival Hall (Adjacent Site)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has been able to arrange for a model showing the London County Council's proposals for the development of the site adjoining the Festival Hall, to be exhibited in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. For the convenience of hon. Members I have arranged for a model to be on display in the Upper Waiting Hall from Tuesday 11th to Friday 14th April.

Dr. Stross: May I thank the Minister for his reply, and ask whether it might be possible for him to make further representations so that the model may stay for a week longer than that in view of the great interest shown by hon. Members throughout the House and the fact that all parties support this scheme?

Mr. Brooke: I do not know if I can arrange for it to stay longer, but the assiduity of hon. Members in attending to their Parliamentary duties is such that I feel sure they will all have an opportunity to examine it the moment the House resumes.

Clean Air Act

Mr. E. Taylor: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what percentage of industrial towns in Lancashire have made smoke control orders; and whether he is satisfied with the progress so far made in implementing the provisions of the Clean Air Act.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): There is no accepted definition of any industrial town. In Lancashire 36 per cent. of all urban authorities and 49 per cent. of black area


urban authorities have made orders. Generally speaking, quite a good start has been made, but my right hon. Friend would like to see all black area authorities making full and vigorous use of their powers.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the tremendous advantages gained from the drive against atmospheric pollution, will the hon. Gentleman please tell me if he contemplates taking action against backward authorities which are slow to make this progress?

Sir K. Joseph: Only persuasion and publicity are in the mind of my right hon. Friend. It is fair to realise that in this region generally 80 per cent. of the black area authorities have submitted smoke control programmes and all but three of those have a target date before 1981.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is my hon. Friend aware that for some time there has been great concern in the West Riding of Yorkshire and that an interesting pamphlet on this subject was published by the hon. Member for Halifax in the 1880s.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Trafford Park area and the Lancashire area are the worst areas in the country? Will he ask his regional officers to give special attention to the area referred to by his hon. Friend?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend welcomes all this evidence of interest and would hope that hon. Members will bring these representations to the notice of their local authorities as well.

Martin Earle Works, Rochester

Mr. Critchley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will refuse to renew the licence granted to the Martin Earle Works, Rochester, under the Alkali Act in connection with the manufacture of cement unless and until a precipitator is installed.

Sir K. Joseph: The current certificate of registration under the Alkali Act expires at the end of the month. No application for a further certificate is before my right hon. Friend. If one is received, the Chief Alkali Inspector will require

the installation of external de-dusting plant.

Mr. Critchley: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I say that I am sure that he is aware that there is a great deal of anxiety in Rochester about the Martin Earle Works? Those works have been working on cement for over a year without a precipitator, and we are concerned lest they ask for a licence and one is granted, because it will be a further eighteen months, I understand, before one is fitted, so that there would then have been a period of almost thirty months of operation of this factory without a precipitator.

Sir K. Joseph: No application for renewal has yet been made to my right hon. Friend.

Thames Flood Barrier

Mr. Oram: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the widespread flooding in riverside areas of London and the Home Counties on the night of 20th–21st March, 1961; and whether, in view of this further warning of the precarious position of these areas, he will expedite his consideration of the Thames flood barrier or some equivalent protective construction.

Mr. Brooke: In answer to the first part of the Question: yes, Sir. In answer to the second, I am trying to hasten a decision on the barrier scheme. The position at the moment is that the Port of London Authority is anxious about the effects of such a scheme on navigation, and other authorities have other reservations. I have arranged for an early discussion between representatives of the principal authorities and the consulting engineers to see how their questions can be resolved and a decision reached.

Mr. Oram: Can the Minister confirm the reports that the circumstances on this particular night were very similar to the circumstances in 1953, namely, the coincidence of high wind and high tide? Can he assure the House that this matter is being dealt with with the urgency it demands in view of the fact that it is seven years since the first tragic warning and now we have to wait for another one? This seems to require very urgent effort indeed.

Mr. Brooke: There was an exceptionally high tide on that night a week ago, and it was increased beyond the expected level by a north-westerly gale in the North Sea. The position about the barrier plan is, as I have told the House, that I have asked all the public authorities concerned to consider it and express their views on it. It is important that the Government should pay attention to those views. I am trying to arrange that those views, as far as possible, shall be reconciled. Then I shall be able with my colleagues to reach a decision on the matter.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Minister think in terms of a timetable and consider fixing some date by which firm decisions ought to be reached and construction begun?

Mr. Brooke: There is to be a further meeting about this in a fortnight's time, but the Port of London Authority is a very important body and the Port of London is very important from the standpoint of navigation. I cannot sweep aside the difficulties which the P.L.A. sees.

Croydon Airport (Future)

Mr. Gough: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now announce his decision in connection with the public inquiry held at Croydon on 14th October, 1960, on the future of Croydon Airport.

Mr. Brooke: I am not yet in a position to announce my decision on this, though I am anxious to do so as soon as practicable.

Mr. Gough: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there are many divergent and important interests concerned in this and that five months is quite a long time? Can he give the House a more specific promise that perhaps a decision will be reached in, say, the next month?

Mr. Brooke: All I can say is that I am fully seized of the importance and urgency of this question. I cannot say anything about its merits until I give my decision. It concerns other Ministries besides my own. For instance, the question of the London-Brighton radial

road was raised at the inquiry. I am anxious that there should be no unnecessary delay.

Afforestation, Dartmoor National Park

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that Economic Forestry, Limited propose to plant part of High House Moor, in the Dartmoor National Park, this autumn; and what action he proposes to take to stop the planting.

Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend understands that these proposals are the subject of negotiations between the Devon County Council and the company, and he does not propose to intervene.

Mr. Hayman: Is not the Dartmoor National Park Committee concerned in this matter, because it is utterly opposed to the planting of this part of High House Moor? I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give that his favourable consideration, particularly in the light of paragraph 7 of the Memorandum of 26th January.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman must realise that this land was bought before the voluntary agreement to which he refers was made. The company was therefore under no obligation to consult the county council; but, as I have already said, they are in consultation and we can rely upon the county council to protect all the interests of amenity.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Welsh Books (Grant Scheme)

Mr. Morris: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will now publish his statement on the working of the grant scheme for Welsh books to date.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. As it is lengthy I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Morris: May I convey my thanks to the Minister for what he has done already and for his interest in the matter? Is he aware that he promised me this report as far back as 24th May last year? Has he considered the points


I raised on that occasion regarding the inadequacy of grants for the publication of individual books and the publishing of out-of-print books?

Mr. Brooke: I should be grateful if the hon. Member would read this report. I am quite ready to make a further statement when I receive the next report that the Welsh University Press Board makes to me. Frankly, I think it wise on the part of the Government to leave detailed decisions to the Board.

Mr. C. Hughes: I appreciate that more money has been made available for this purpose. Is the Minister aware that experience has shown that the administration of the scheme is not entirely satisfactory? When he consults the University Press Board and the Welsh publishers, will he bear in mind that it would be a good thing if the scheme were revised so as to make i more effective than at present?

Mr. Brooke: I think that it is becoming more effective. An increasing number of grants are being given. But those grants and the method of administration of the amounts, I think, are without precedent, and the Press Board has to proceed empirically. In general, I think it has administered the grants very sensibly.

Following is the statement:

Following the report in 1952 of the Ready Committee on Welsh Language Publishing the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire proposed this scheme for securing the publication of more books in the Welsh language. The scheme was accepted by the Government, which promised a grant of £1,000 a year for a period of five years, the first £1,000 being made available on 23rd August, 1956. This amount was increased to £3,000 for the financial year 1960–61, with a statement that the amount would be raised by £500 a year to £5,000 in 1964–65. At the end of this period it is hoped that publishers of Welsh books

will be in a strong enough position to carry on without assistance.

The grant has throughout been administered by the University of Wales Press Board, which has unfettered discretion in the giving or withholding of grants in respect of particular books. It is the Board's practice to meet twice a year to consider grant applications from publishing houses, and each year a report is presented to the Minister for Welsh Affairs showing how the grant monies have been spent. New works only (including translations), as distinct from re-issues and reprints, are eligible for grant, payment of which is made on publication of the book.

The numbers of applications and allocations of grant in successive years has been as follows:

Year
Applications
Number of Publishers Applying
Grant Allocations


1956–57
…
17
6
12


1957–58
…
28
5
27


1958–59
…
40
7
34


1959–60
…
47
10
41

The amount of grant has varied within the range £25 to £150 per book. The Board has based the grant for each book on consideration of a number of factors, such as the cost of production, the size of the edition, and the prospects of rapid sale. In the early stages the grants were sufficiently favourable to enable the books to proceed to publication, even though the amount of grant allocated has never been as high as that asked for by the publishers. As the number of applications increased, the amounts of grant were reduced in order that as many books as possible might be helped with the available money. At that time the reduction of the grants reached the point where in some cases the publishers judged that they were inadequate to make the publication of the book a reasonable risk, with the result that some grants were not taken up. However, the increased grant made available in 1960–61 enabled the Board to review and increase their original grant offers in 9 such cases.

The books for which grants have been paid or promised during the period August, 1956 to August, 1960, can be classified as follows:


—
1957
1958
1959
1960
Total


Original Works:







Novels
2
6
7
14
29


Poetry
2
4
7
12
25


Drama
2
1
1
4
8


Short Stories
1
2
2
—
5


Other Works:







Travel
2
4
7
2
15


Biography
—
2
7
2
11


Essays, folk songs, religious works, translations, etc.
3
8
3
7
21



12
27
34
41
114

In 1957 the Cardiganshire County Council made a contribution of £1,000 to the Cardiganshire Welsh Books Society to be used to foster the writing of popular books in Welsh and similar contributions have been made by the County Council every year since then. This money has been used to assist the production of quite a number of books, but by grants to the authors, not to the publishers. In judging the effect of the Government publication grant on the output of books in Welsh, it must therefore be remembered that there has been this other source of finance, which has assisted the same operation though in a different way.

The numbers of books for adults published in Welsh each year since 1956 are as follows:






No. of Books


1956
…
…
…
60


1957
…
…
…
62


1958
…
…
…
71


1559
…
…
…
64


1960
…
…
…
93

On the announcement of the grant in August. 1956, some time was bound to elapse before publishers could make firm plans for expanding their output of Welsh books. After that more time was bound to elapse before the additional books could reach the point of publication. It was therefore to be expected that the number of books published would show no significant increase before 1958. The subsequent fall in 1959 must be regarded as attributable to the lengthy dispute in the printing trade which took place in that year. The Government grant appears now to be fulfilling its purpose successfully.

Flood Damage, Cardiff (Assessment)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that some assessors of flood damage in Cardiff are insisting on renewals of furniture being second-hand; whether the Government have issued regulations to this effect; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: The assessors of flood damage in Cardiff are not insisting on renewals of furniture being second-hand, but the basis of compensation is good second-hand value. This was the basis adopted in administering the Lord Mayor's Fund for the East Coast floods of 1953; and I have suggested that on this occasion all the voluntary funds should adopt it.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the people of Cardiff find it hard to distinguish between second-hand value and being told that they must buy second-hand? Will the Minister realise that when people have lost items from their homes they do not all like to

put second-hand things in their place? Will he give further consideration to this in view of the fact that a great deal of publicity has been given to the idea that those who have lost would be adequately compensated?

Mr. Brooke: The instruction is that in valuing a liberal view should be taken of the pre-flood conditions, that is, the value should relate to good second-hand condition. If the hon. Member has the misfortune to have his car stolen, he will not find that the insurance company will give him a new car. It will give him the value of what he has lost.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rent Tribunal, Barking

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he decided to close the Barking Rent Tribunal without first consulting neighbouring local authorities whose residents are affected; and what reply has been sent to the protest made to him by the East Ham Borough Council on this matter.

Mr. Brooke: It is not my normal practice to consult local authorities before arranging for the amalgamation of rent tribunal areas, but always the interests of local residents are carefully considered before any change is made. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply to the clerk of the East Ham Borough Council.

Mr. Prentice: Does not the Minister think that this is a subject on which local authorities ought to be consulted, in view of the experience they gain of housing conditions in their areas and in view of their wide responsibilities in these matters? Will he consult the local authorities in this area about the possibility of the new tribunal holding local hearings in different parts of the area?

Mr. Brooke: I have already told the House that the new tribunal will be prepared to hold local hearings if necessary. As to consulting the local authorities,


since I have been the responsible Minister I have brought about no fewer than sixteen amalgamations of rent tribunals and there has been hardly any comment or criticism from the local authorities thereafter.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses had a bath, hot water or inside toilet installed by private landlords and owner occupiers, respectively, with a Government improvement grant in Great Britain in the twelve months to the latest convenient date; and what proportions he estimates they are, respectively, of the 5,469,385 households without a bath at the 1951 census.

Mr. Brooke: I regret that the figures requested by the hon. Member are not available. Records of improvement grants are not kept in this detail.

Mr. Allaun: The Minister has himself said that only 18,000 private landlords' houses were treated in this way in the nine months of last year. Do not those miserable figures show that, with a few honourable exceptions, landlords will not bother to install baths even with generous Government grants? Will the Minister now consider the views of the men who really know, the Association of Public Health Inspectors, who, at their annual conference two years ago, asked that some form of compulsion should be applied?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that the hon. Member will support the Clause in the Housing Bill—which had a Second Reading yesterday—which makes the installation of improvements less financially unremunerative to landlords than it has been hitherto.

Later—

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order. Before the Minister of Housing and Local Government leaves the Chamber, I wish to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, about Question No. 9. The Minister said that the figures were not available. First, I have seen the figures and, secondly, the Minister must know the figures when he makes grants for these purposes.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I cannot make the Minister answer, nor can I make him answer in any particular way.

Caravans and Council Houses, Cannock

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the number of caravans occupied as permanent homes under Cannock Rural District Council, Staffordshire, the number of council houses under construction, and the estimated number that will be available to let in the next twelve months.

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that there are some 950 caravans occupied as permanent homes within the rural district. The council has 181 houses under construction and estimates that nearly 150 of these will be available for letting in the next twelve months—as well as relets of existing council houses as vacancies occur.

Miss Lee: Will the Parliamentary Secretary please note the terrific disparity between the number of caravan dwellers and the hopes of having council houses? Will he also note the price of land in this area, which is now so high that the council is almost afraid to build houses? In those circumstances, will he take very great care to see that no family is asked to leave a caravan site which is properly and hygienically run for a slum back street?

Sir K. Joseph: The new Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, provides a guard against the last part of that supplementary question. As to the first part, the hon. Lady should not think that all caravan dwellers are seeking to live in a council house. A large number of them are not seeking that and another large number are on other waiting lists than that of Cannock itself.

Miss Lee: I entirely agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is very important to distinguish between families who genuinely want to live in caravans and maintain a high standard and families who are forced to live in caravans because they have no other home. It is very important that we do not underestimate the number of the latter.

Caravan Site, Great Wyrley

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he has considered the representations made to him on behalf of the residents in Gorsey Lane Caravan Site, Great Wyrley, Staffordshire; and, in view of the uncertainty regarding the future of this project, if he will give an undertaking that the number of caravans in occupation will not be gradually reduced and that their five-year lease will be replaced by permanent security of tenure.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has considered the representations made to him by the hon. Member. He understands that this caravan site was started without planning permission, but that the owner has since received a permission subject to conditions which provide for a gradual run-down of the site and its final closure in 1965. If the owner is aggrieved at the conditions imposed, he has a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend.

Miss Lee: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is one of the outstanding caravan sites in the district? It is of an exceptionally high standard. Can he not say just a little more? Can he not give the residents just a small ray of hope by at least saying that until the whole merits are gone into there will not be a running down of the site, because nothing could be more dangerous to hygiene and safety than for the site to be gradually run down?

Sir K. Joseph: First, there is a right of appeal, which has not yet been exercised. Therefore, I must be careful not to comment on the merits of the case. Secondly, the hon. Lady is evidently misunderstanding the word "run-down". This does not mean that there can be any eviction at all for the moment. It simply means that voluntary leavers are not replaced. The site cannot be brought to an end under the present condition until the end of 1965, and there is a right of appeal against both the time limit and the run-down condition.

Compulsory Purchase Orders

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is

aware of the action of Hatfield Rural District Council in assisting the landlords of Rodney Court, who were demanding rents beyond the means of tenants, to attain possession of what will, in consequence, be decontrolled flats; and whether he will advise local authorities to deal with problems of this kind by means of compulsory purchase orders.

Mr. Brooke: Local authorities are already aware that I am willing to entertain compulsory purchase orders where tenants are in danger of being made homeless because exorbitant rents are being demanded from them by landlords. It must be for each local authority to decide, in the light of all the evidence before it, whether in any particular case a compulsory purchase order should be made. In the case referred to by the hon. Member, I understand that the council will be considering its decision at its next meeting.

Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that what the council has so far decided to do in this case is as follows? The landlords of Rodney Court are asking from tenants whose leases have run out rents of more than five times the gross value. The council has announced its intention of dealing with this problem by rehousing those tenants ahead of the 600 on its waiting list and, in addition, rehousing 12 tenants in statutory controlled dwellings. Does not the Minister agree that that means that the local council is making a present to the landlords of what will become decontrolled dwellings and is doing that at the expense of the 600 people on its waiting list? Does the Minister think that that is a proper way for local authorities to behave? He says that he receives very few requests for compulsory purchase orders, but that may be because too many councils do not tackle these problems in the proper way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must renew my appeal that questions should not be so long. We have done only thirteen in twenty minutes.

Mr. Brooke: I found the council's decision somewhat obscure, and I gather that it is returning to the matter at its next meeting, but it is not for me or for Parliament to interfere with the decision of elected local authorities.

Easington

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the shortfall in housing construction in Peterlee, he will now permit the Easington Rural District Council to build an increased number of houses in the area outside Peterlee.

Mr. Brooke: I am prepared to consider any proposals the council may decide to put to me.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the Minister aware that the council has put its proposal before him on several occasions? Why can he not be prevailed upon to grant permission?

Mr. Brooke: I do not know what proposal the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. His Question speaks of
the shortfall in housing construction in Peterlee …
There has been a shortfall also in house building by the rural district council, which has not built as many houses as it said it would build.

Houses and Flats

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to what extent private landlords have built houses and flats to let during the past year.

Mr. Brooke: The returns made to me do not distinguish between private houses and flats built to sell and those built to let.

Mr. Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the absence of those figures, it looks very suspiciously as though private enterprise is quite incapable of satisfying the need for accommodation to let at reasonable rents? In those circumstances, is it not all the more necessary to encourage local authorities to go on providing houses and flats at rents within the means of ordinary people?

Mr. Brooke: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have read the passage in the White Paper published six weeks ago which said that the Government's aim is to secure that there will be houses for sale and houses

for rent in sufficient numbers to keep pace with the rising demand of a prospering society.

Mr. MacColl: If the figures do not distinguish between owner-occupation and renting, why was the right hon. Gentleman able to quote a figure of 160,000 out of 162,000 as being built for owner-occupation?

Mr. Brooke: I am not aware of having quoted that figure, but the answer that I have just given to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) is correct.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give the usual notice.

Unoccupied Dwellings, London Area

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Housing and Loal Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will ask for reports from London and extra-metropolitan borough councils to show how many domestic dwellings within their area have been unoccupied for six months or more other than dwellings condemned for demolition; and if he will give further consideration to the need to empower those councils compulsorily to acquire such unused property.

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. Neither do I see any need for giving local authorities additional powers of compulsory purchase, because the existing powers are adequate, and local authorities, which as rating authorities are aware of the facts in their area, are already in a position to take action in suitable cases if they think fit.

Mr. Sorensen: First, does not the Minister appreciate that a good many local authorities are not taking this action which I understand he thinks is desirable? Secondly, would it not be of value if he encouraged local authorities to acquaint him with the number of unoccupied dwellings so that he might have an overall picture of the scene?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think it is necessary. The local authorities in the whole London area not long ago were looking for empty properties which they could acquire in order to end requisitioning. They found is extremely difficult to find suitable properties for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Wireless and Television

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now state when, and in what form, the Government of Kenya intend to implement the recommendation of the Proud Committee that television be introduced in Kenya.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): On 4th January, 1961, the Government of Kenya issued a statement of policy on broadcasting and television. I have placed a copy in the Library.
The Government of Kenya are of the opinion that control of television should be vested in an independent public corporation, responsible for both sound broadcasting and television. Commercial interests would be invited to participate in the financing and organisation of these services.
The Government have accordingly issued an invitation to commercial organisations to submit proposals to cover the maintenance and expansion of the existing sound broadcasting service and the introduction of a television service; and in considering the legislation necessary for establishing the proposed corporation.

Mr. Hall: In view of the high capital cost to Africans of television sets, can my hon. Friend say whether arrangements are being made for communal viewing?

Mr. Fraser: That will be dealt with when the Kenya Government bring forward detailed legislation.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: In these plans, will the Government bear carefully in mind the importance of television in connection with education in an underdeveloped country like Kenya?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman will see in the hand-out, one-sixth of the time is to be devoted to adult and primary education.

Famine Conditions, Turkana

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he is taking to deal with the famine in the Northern Province of Kenya.

Mr. H. Fraser: My right hon. Friend is informed that famine conditions at present exist only in the Turkana district of the Northern Province, and the situation there has been relieved by the generous assistance of the Royal Air Force who have flown supplies of food to this remote and almost inaccessible area.
As regards the financial assistance which Her Majesty's Government are providing for famine relief generally in Kenya, I would refer the right hon. Member to the last paragraph of my reply to the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) on 28th February.

Mr. Dugdale: Whilst realising that this area is remote and virtually inaccessible, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will give his attention to it and be as much concerned with it as he would if the famine were in Stafford and Stone? Does he realise that human beings are involved?

Mr. Fraser: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are taking every step and, of course, we are vitally concerned with the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the previous Answer again, he will see that great assistance is being given.

Land

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many holdings have been bought by the Kenya Land Commission in each of the six months up to the last convenient date; how many acres, and at what average price per acre, have been acquired in each month; and if he will give separate figures for purchases from owners of non-European stock.

Mr. H. Fraser: The Kenya Land Development and Settlement Board, which I assume my hon. Friend has in mind, was not set up until January this year. Since then it has bought six holdings totalling 4,549 acres at an average price of £14·35 an acre. All these holdings were bought in March, and from European owners. The scheme is very much in its initial stages, and the first target is the purchase, sub-division and farm planning of 180,000 acres.

Sir R. Glyn: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he can tell us how the Lands Board is being administered? Would he agree that it is in the best interests of Kenya that agricultural production should be maintained at a high level, which can generally be best done with largish farms with modern facilities?

Mr. Fraser: Yes. We are seeing that there is no diminution, owing to this reorganisation, of the actual output of these acres.

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made with the land settlement scheme in Kenya for which Her Majesty's Government have made available £3½ million in loans and grants in the period to the end of March, 1964; and if he is satisfied that the Settlement Board has adequate staff and finance to carry out its task.

Mr. H. Fraser: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I would refer him to the reply I have just given the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn).
The £3½ million which Her Majesty's Government have agreed to make available to the Settlement Board is mainly for land purchase, and the Kenya Government are currently negotiating with the International Bank and the Colonial Development Corporation for loans for development. It is hoped that these negotiations will result in sufficient funds being available during the initial period for the schemes at present planned.
A nucleus of experienced agricultural and administrative staff has been seconded to the Board; the remaining staff have yet to be recruited, but this will be done as soon as the necessary finance is assured.

Sir A. Hurd: Will the Colonial Office give high priority to this project, particularly in view of the great importance today of getting more responsible Africans settled on the land as yeoman farmers, and also providing an active market in land for those who want to sell their present holdings? Will my hon. Friend look again at the matter of staffing? There seems some evidence that the

Settlement Board is very short of land settlement staff, and could get on better if it had some more competent men.

Mr. Fraser: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Jomo Kenyatta

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the obscurity of Appendix II to the Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya of January 1954, Command Paper No. 9081, he will consider publishing a further explanatory memorandum indicating how many references in this document are regarded by Her Majesty's Government as applying to Jomo Kenyatta; and what evidence Her Majesty's Government have about action taken by Kenyatta to prevent the administering of such oaths.

Mr. H. Fraser: My right hon. Friend does not consider that any commentary on the information about oaths supplied by the Parliamentary Delegation in 1954 is required to demonstrate Jomo Kenyatta's guilt on specific charges relating to Mau Mau. This guilt was fully established in the courts. As regards the last part of the Question, I have no information bearing directly on the administering of oaths. At the trial, it was alleged in Kenyatta's defence that he either knew nothing of Mau Mau or sought to denounce it, but this was not accepted by the magistrate.

Sir R. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that Kenyatta is mentioned by name in two Mau Mau oaths published in the Report and, by inference, in many of them? Is he further aware that there have been reports recently of further subversive meetings and oath takings in Kenya? Would he agree that, in those circumstances, Kenyatta should not be released until he has openly repudiated Mau Mau and deprecated the administering of these obscene oaths that have resulted in the deaths of many innocent people?

Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has made it perfectly clear that Kenyatta's release is a matter for the Governor to decide. As to the other part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would point out that the oath-taking bestialities were not the main purport of the charge


against Kenyatta; but that of the management of the Mau Mau society. I am unable to go any further about the release of Kenyatta than the statements made from this Dispatch Box by my right hon Friend.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Kenyatta was convicted, amongst other things, on the evidence of a witness who was subsequently convicted in the same court of perjury, and that it was, therefore, the evidence of a totally unreliable person? Is he further aware that Kenyatta has long ago completed the sentence that followed his conviction, obtained in that way, and that it is quite clear that there will be no settled Government in Kenya until he is released.

Mr. Fraser: That is a matter of opinion, but what we maintain, and what my right hon. Friend maintains, is that we will not release Kenyatta until there is no risk to law and order in doing so. That must be the prime consideration of anyone endowed with the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Elections

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that, in the recent Kenya elections at Njoro, the New Kenya Party were displaying official banners linking a vote for them with the release of Kenyatta; and whether he is satisfied that intimidation was absent from these elections;
(2) whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the conduct of the Kenya elections last month.

Mr. H. Fraser: So far as the Kenya Government are aware, no banner coupling the name of Kenyatta with "Vote for the New Kenya Party" was displayed at this or any other election meeting. It was observed that at a meeting of the Kenya Coalition Africans were carrying placard's reading either "Vote for the New Kenya Party" or "Release Kenyatta", but both slogans were not displayed simultaneously on the same placard. My right hon. Friend does not consider that any inquiry into the conduct of the recent Kenya elections is necessary.

Mr. Turton: In view of the very many allegations of intimidation, bribery and corruption in the course of the recent elections in Kenya, will the Government send out to Kenya an impartial independent commission of inquiry to take evidence and to report?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. Any question of malpractice, bribery or corruption must come before the Kenya courts, and no such charges have been made.

Mr. Paget: Why do we put ourselves time after time in a position of saying that we will not give in to pressure and then give in to it? We shall give in. We shall release Kenyatta. Why not get on with it now?

Mr. Fraser: We have made it perfectly clear that we shall release Kenyatta when we consider that he is no longer a risk to law and order in Kenya.

Mr. Shinwell: Has not the hon. Gentleman ever heard of Tory intimidation at elections?

Mr. Fraser: I have heard of people releasing sparrows in Conservative meetings—

Hon. Members: What sparrows?

Mr. Fraser: From the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the flippant and unsatisfactory replies of my hon. Friend, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

United States Aid

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what inquiries he has made, and what information he has received, about the extent to which Jamaica and other West Indian islands will benefit from the United States President's plans to give aid totalling $600 million, under the Act of Bogota, 1960, to these and other territories.

Mr. H. Fraser: Mr. Douglas Dillon told the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 15th August, 1960, that the Federation of the West


Indies is included in the Social Development Programme for Latin America set up under the Act of Bogota because it will shortly become independent. During my recent visit to the West Indies I had long and cordial talks with the United States representatives, and they expressed great friendliness towards the Federation. Hon. Members will know that during the talks on the United States bases in the Federation, the United States representatives were able to promise aid to the islands concerned amounting to $2½ million.

Mr. Chapman: Was that figure under the Act of Botota? If not, what is the extra figure that may be available under that Act?

Mr. Fraser: The Act of Bogota applies only to independent States in Latin America. This was a different payment, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be interested to know how the United States are helping the West Indies.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Constitution

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when, where, and in what form of words, the Government made it known in March, 1960, that constitutional changes in Northern Rhodesia, other than consequential on the Federal review, could not be ruled out in all circumstances.

Mr. H. Fraser: The only statement on the question of constitutional change in Northern Rhodesia made at this time was that which my right hon. Friend made in Lusaka on 29th March. He then said:
My colleagues and I have no plans in contemplation to amend the Constitution in Northern Rhodesia, although I cannot, of course, predict the outcome of the review of the Federal Constitution or guarantee that its result may not entail certain consequential changes in territorial Constitutions.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my hon. Friend say whether the United Federal Party leaders in Northern Rhodesia are correct in thinking that the British Government had assured them that there would be no constitutional changes in Northern Rhodesia, other than those consequential on the Federal Review?

Mr. Fraser: It is worth pointing out that when my right hon. Friend spoke, he had hoped that that procedure would be followed; that there should be a Federal Review prior to the consequential changes taking place in Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. In point of fact, as the House will know, at the Federal Review Conference held this last December, it was decided by all parties concerned that the local constitutional reviews should proceed.
In addition to that, my hon. Friend will remember that there was the publication of the Monckton Report—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too long."] This is an important question and I am giving an important answer.
Finally, I must point out that it was at the instigation of the people of Northern Rhodesia, the elected members, that constitutional talks were held in relation to Northern Rhodesia.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Disturbance, Soche

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on police action at the meeting in Nyasaland in January, 1961, at which Mr. Petro Chinkonde lost his life and a number of others were injured.

Mr. H. Fraser: Yes, Sir. At a public meeting at Soche on 22nd January, a small party of police in charge of a recording van had to send for reinforcements to protect it from an unruly crowd. After nearly two hours of difficulty, the crowd of about 5,000 persons got out of control, throwing stones and attacking Press men and a television cameraman. A detachment of the police mobile force was called in and, after due warning, dispersed the crowd with tear smoke and a baton charge. Eleven persons were detained in hospital after the incident, one of whom, Mr. Petro Chinkonde, died later. Ten other persons were hurt, as well as six members of the police.
It is clear from the full report which was received from the Governor that the police acted with great calm and forbearance under considerable provocation.

Mr. Thomson: Does the Minister appreciate how serious is this statement he has made, that there were a good many injuries and one person lost his life? Is he aware that it is denied by those who took part in the meeting that there was any stoning by the participants in the meeting? Would it not be better to make a more thorough investigation of the matter? Also, why was a recording van there in the first place?

Mr. Fraser: A police recording van was there as one of the conditions of the permit for the meeting to take place. As the hon. Member knows, there have in the past been accusations of sedition and so forth in Nyasaland, and it is part of the practice that at these large meetings there should be a recording van present. As regards his request for an inquiry, the Governor made a full administrative inquiry into the matter, and my right hon. Friend is convinced that the findings of that inquiry are correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Grants and Loans

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what grants and loans have been received respectively by Aden Colony and the Aden Protectorate during the past five years from Her Majesty's Government and from other than Colony and Protectorate sources; and, in particular, which is the total amount advanced in respect of the Abyan and other irrigation schemes.

Mr. H. Fraser: Grants by Her Majesty's Government to the Colony and the Protectorate during the last five years total £596,000 and £5,378,000 respectively; loans amount to £1,020,000 and £6,000 respectively. A further £5,694,000 has been spent directly by Her Majesty's Government on Protectorate services. There have been no grants or loans from other external sources. The grants to the Protectorate include about £100,000 for irrigation works, but no grants have been made to the Abyan scheme during this period.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that no funds have been secured from, say, the Nuffield Trust, U.N.E.S.C.O., or any body of that kind? Further, in view of the very encouraging success of the Abyan scheme, is it contemplated that

similar schemes should be started elsewhere; and should not even greater subventions than have been given be made available for the Protectorate and the Colony?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir, we are looking into this. Our inspector is out there. We hope at present to recruit two more irrigation engineers and hydrologists, and three schemes are now being contemplated.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Treatment of Offenders

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a committee with similar terms of reference to the Streatfeild Committee.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Some parts of the Report of Mr. Justice Streatfeild's Committee will be of considerable interest to those concerned with the treatment of offenders in Scotland and I do not consider that there is a case at the present time for setting up a similar Scottish committee.

Mr. Hannan: Although, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the Report deals with offenders, he will be aware that the Committee dealt also with the interval which elapses between offences being committed and the offenders being brought before the courts. In view of the figures which the Secretary of State himself has provided in regard to Glasgow, will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Maclay: Part A of the Report of the Streatfeild Committee does not deal with a matter which is relevant to Scotland, as I think the hon. Member will realise if he studies it, but I am aware of the delays to which he refers and, together with the Lord Advocate, I am considering whether any steps are necessary to ease the position.

Woolworth's Store, Glasgow (Fire)

Mr. Hannan: asked, the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the report of Glasgow's firemaster on the causes of the recent fire at Woolworth's Store, Argyle Street; and what steps he is taking to ensure a high standard of fire prevention measures and their enforcement.

Mr. Maclay: I am aware of the contents of the report, which I have brought to the attention both of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, in connection with the forthcoming Government legislation relating to health, welfare and safety in certain non-industrial premises including shops, and also of the Joint Fire Prevention Committee of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which, pending legislation, is preparing guidance aimed at securing a higher standard of fire precautions in shops and departmental stores.

Mr. Hannan: We have heard about this projected legislation for a long time. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the recent disastrous fires in Glasgow? Will he cast his mind back to the fire in the whisky store and bonded warehouse? When does he expect to introduce legislation, and when does he expect to receive the report from the Joint Fire Prevention Committee?

Mr. Maclay: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said last July, we hope to introduce the Bill before the Offices Act comes into force at the beginning of 1962. I hope shortly to be able to issue guidance to fire authorities which will assist fire prevention officers to give advice about steps to be taken to ensure higher standards of fire precautions in shops and departmental stores.

Holy Loch Area

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Holy Loch area is still listed as a reception area for evacuees in the event of war.

Mr. Maclay: The detailed re-examination of evacuation problems is not yet complete. Any question of classification of areas must await the outcome of the review.

Mr. Manuel: Will not the Secretary of State agree that this question needs very little consideration? If ultimately the Holy Loch area is removed from the list as a reception area, what areas will replace it for evacuees from Ayrshire and Glasgow?

Mr. Maclay: All the relevant factors must be taken into account and will be taken into account. I cannot prejudge what the final review will show.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Red Deer Commission (Annual Report)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive his First Annual Report from the Red Deer Commission.

Mr. Maclay: I expect to receive this Report next week.

Mr. Rankin: So the Question has been helpful, I take it. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it is nearly two years since we parted with the Bill. Has he no interim figures to give us an idea of how he is proceeding in regard to the problem of deer overcrowding in the Highlands? Is he any more successful there than in his attempts to deal with the overcrowding of human beings in Glasgow?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will appreciate that the Deer Commission came into existence only on 1st October, 1959, and the report will cover its operations since then.

School Meals and Milk

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of school children, and what percentage of the total school population it represented, who were receiving free meals, taking school meals and taking school milk, respectively, at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Maclay: In round figures, the number of children receiving free meals in education authority schools in Scotland at a date in September, 1960, was 57,000 or 6 per cent. of the total school roll: the number taking meals was 272,000 or 31 per cent. of the total: and the number taking milk was 732,000, or 83 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Dempsey: Has the Secretary of State diagnosed the figures in such a way as to realise that more than double the number taking school meals are taking school milk, and that this is due in principle to the one reason that school milk is free? Will he do his best to


resist any attack by the hatchet men in the Cabinet to interfere with the free school milk for our Scottish children?

Mr. Maclay: I am not convinced that price is the most important element in all this. There are various factors besides price—above all, the fact that many parents wish their children to go home to lunch.

Teachers

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the representations in respect of the conditions of service, salaries and recruitment in the teaching profession, submitted to him by the staff of Aberhill Secondary School, Methil; what reply he has sent; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclay: The reply sent to these representations points out that salary negotiations must be pursued through the National Joint Council and that it is my continuing concern to do everything I can to encourage recruitment to the teaching profession and, so far as lies within my power, to help in securing such improvements as may be required in conditions of service.

Mr. Gourlay: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that education in Scotland today is facing a staffing crisis, the effects of which will far transcend anything which might have arisen from the shortage of policemen? Does he not realise that the mood of the teachers in Scotland, for which he is largely responsible, is not one to be fooled around with at this time? Will he, therefore, deal with the problem as a real emergency and prove to the Scottish people that our heritage in education is still one of which we can he justly proud?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member knows that I am fully aware of the anxious position in Scotland with regard to teachers, and I am doing everything I possibly can to meet the situation.

Mr. Rankin: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing?

Sir M. Galpern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the reasons for the Government's refusal to accept the Knox Committee's recom-

mendation that full pay and full pension should be granted under certain conditions to teachers returning to service after retirement.

Mr. Maclay: The Government were unable to accept this recommendation because it conflicted with the fundamental principle of public service superannuation that a pensioner reemployed in the same service may receive only so much of his pension that, when it is added to his pay, the total of pay and pension will not be greater than his pay at the time of his retirement.

Sir M. Galpern: Is the Secretary of State aware that a retired teacher can take up employment with a commercial concern without loss of pension, but that if he re-enters the classroom he is penalised by a reduction in the amount of his pension, and that this policy is wholly unjust and unwise?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will also be aware that this issue goes far beyond teachers' pensions. It goes very wide indeed.

Education

Sir M. Galpern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will set up a committee of inquiry to examine the state of education in Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: Various aspects of education have recently been examined either by committees specially appointed for the purpose or by standing committees, and others are at present being examined in these ways.
A body conducting a general inquiry would have to examine in detail the same problems as the committees I have referred to and would thus largely duplicate their work.

Sir M. Galpern: Does the Secretary of State realise that education in Scotland is no longer in a state of crisis: it is now in a situation where it is chaotic as a result of the tragic shortage of qualified teachers, part-time education and over-sized classes, and yesterday's decision of the Glasgow teachers to strike on 3rd May? Does he not realise that, if a situation of disaster is to be avoided, a sense of urgency and seriousness will have to be shown by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Maclay: I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate from my answer to a previous supplementary question that I am very fully aware of the anxious position of teaching in Scotland.

Sir M. Galpern: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRINCE SOUVANNAH PHOUMA (VISIT)

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite Prince Souvannah Phouma to meet him during his visit to London.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not be in the country at the time of Prince Souvannah Phouma's visit, I shall invite the Prince to call upon me. My noble Friend the Foreign Secretary expects to be back from the S.E.A.T.O. meeting in Bangkok in time to see the Prince, and arrangements are being made for him to discuss Laotian affairs with other senior Ministers and officials concerned.

Mr. Healey: While welcoming the fact that the Government are arranging for Prince Souvannah Phouma to see the best Prime Minister we have got, may I say that we on this side of the House will welcome any step which is taken to reinforce the unique standing of Prince Souvannah Phouma as the one man who has a chance of uniting the Laotian people around him?

Mr. Butler: We realise that the Prince is in a special position to be able to act as a link between the two opposite sides in Laos. It is part of our main desire to take the opportunity to help to promote a settlement. We shall naturally look forward to our conversations.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Prince is coming, how long he is staying and whether the right hon. Gentleman expects that we shall have received a reply from the Soviet Government before the Prince arrives?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give a date for the reply from the Soviet Government, which we are hoping will be as soon as possible. We have no indication of the exact date but we only believe that it will be soon. With regard to the visit of the Prince, he hopes to arrive on Thursday evening and to stay approximately two days, we are so informed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY {SECURITY)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a Committee of Privy Councillors to inquire into Her Majesty's Government's failure to safeguard naval security.

Mr. Marsh: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with present arrangements for naval security, in view of the widespread public anxiety following the recent Lonsdale spy trial; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I would ask hon. Members to await the statement which I propose to make tomorrow.

Mr. Pannell: Before the Leader of the House makes that statement, will he bear in mind that we are not suggesting, as the Prime Minister did, that we need any more new security measures? What we are concerned to see is that the security measures that have already been agreed upon and practised over some years should be kept? We are concerned here to investigate dereliction of duty.

Mr. Butler: We are fully aware of that, and that is the reason that the Prime Minister said that the main object of the first inquiry was to elicit the facts arising out of this case. At a later stage the Prime Minister reserved the position to look into wider issues and referred to his wish to act on behalf of the whole House and to maintain contact with hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Marsh: While both sides of the House will be pleased to hear that the Government are at least grinding into action on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that since the trial took place a further group of suspects who were being watched, it is


suggested by the special branch, have since vanished? Before making up his mind what he is going to do, does he not think that the Government might be able to publish a table of ones which have left each day?

Mr. Butler: As the hon. Gentleman appears to have full information, I hope that he will place it at the disposal of the Government.

Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Admiralty will be in charge of this inquiry into naval security?

Mr. Butler: I said that I would make a statement tomorrow and, as statements were made both by myself and the Prime Minister, I think that it will be indicated when I make the statement that the inquiry is not purely a Departmental one.

Mr. Wade: Will any inquiry into this matter include consideration of the remuneration of the security officers? Is the Leader of the House satisfied that it is adequate to attract the personnel necessary for the important duties involved?

Mr. Butler: I cannot pursue that matter today.

Mr. Woodburn: The answers so far given seem to suggest that this is being regarded as the only spy ring in the country. Is not the right hon. Gentleman considering the whole question far beyond the Admiralty, because there must be many others, and perhaps the paid spy is the least dangerous of all spies?

Mr. Butler: I think that I indicated in the early hours of the morning, when I answered the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), that we are well aware of these wider considerations and we are trying to bear them in mind.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 42.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we be allowed to put just one supplementary question from the back benches?

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPY TRIAL (EXHIBITS)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause to be arranged an exhibition in London of exhibits used by the Crown in the recent Lansdale spy trial on lines similar to those arranged by Mr. Khrushahev in Moscow following the U2 incident.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion. But I can foresee certain difficulties about it; and in any event I do not think that it would be right to arrange any such exhibition while appeals are still pending.

Mr. Pannell: Although he admits that he does not appear to know much about it at the present time, will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to whether what has happened in this case during the six years in which we have failed to keep any under-water secrets has not done more harm to our country than a simple flight of a U2 might have done over Soviet territory?

Mr. Butler: I cannot necessarily accept my ignorance or the hon. Gentleman's assumption. In making my statement tomorrow I shall bear all this in mind. We shall examine the future of any exhibition such as this, when we are clear that appeals are not pending.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Why should we always let the Russians win every round in this propaganda war? Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is no security reason why such an exhibition should not be held? It would be a very good thing that the people of this country should be made aware of the extent and thoroughness of the work of the Russian secret service against this country.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. These are the sort of points we will bear in mind in considering the future of the exhibition when there is no question of appeals pending.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As we are now supposed to be spending £7 million, and as the Russians are probably spending much more money, would it not be possible for both nations to save a lot of money by pooling their secrets?

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make about the activities of the Committee helping us with accommodation.
The Committee which I reappointed on 21st November under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Angus (Sir J. Duncan) to consider certain proposals for improving the accommodation of this House has reported progress.
It recommends that the proposed new accommodation in the roof space over the Committee Rooms upstairs should provide in the main for office accommodation and book storage, including approximately 1,000 sq. ft. for the Fees Office, with residential accommodation limited to a flat suitable for regular residence by the Clerk of the House and two bedrooms with a joint bathroom for the Clerks-Assistant. The Committee will make further recommendations regarding the allocation of the remainder of the roof space estimated to amount to approximately 16,000 sq. ft., and of the present accommodation occupied by the Fees Office in Westminster Hall.
The Minister of Works proposes to start work on the roof space scheme at the beginning of this year's Summer Recess. He expects that, provided the work is not unduly interrupted, the North wing should be ready for occupation after about eighteen months and the balance of the accommodation after a further eighteen months.
The Committee further recommends that the building formerly occupied by St. Stephen's Club, which the Minister of Works has offered to make available for temporary use for a period of about three years before demolition, should be used as follows:
The ground floor to accommodate the Fees Office and the secretaries of seventeen Members who would be allotted individual rooms or shared rooms on the first floor. The accommodation on the fourth and fifth floors to be reserved for any necessary temporary vacation of the present Upper Committee Corridor or other parts of the House of Commons during the work on the roof space scheme.
The Committee is unable to recommend a suitable Parliamentary use for the second and third floors and propose that these should revert to the Minister of Works for Government use. The Minister of Works is drawing up plans for the necessary temporary adaptations and expects the accommodation to be available for use early next year.
A further recommendation of the Committee is that a new lounge and writing room for Members should be provided by erecting screens with a door in each to cut off the South end of the Cloisters on the ground floor. The view of the roof of the Cloisters would be preserved if the tops of the screens were glass.
All these recommendations are, I understand, acceptable to the Minister of Works.
The Committee has also considered what facilities might be offered to the wives, or husbands, of Members. It has proposed that, as an experiment, the Harcourt Room should be open to wives or husbands of Members to wait and take refreshment unaccompanied by a Member.
I am sure that the House will wish me to thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for their labours in the service of the House and for the progress that they have made.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am sure that the House would wish to thank the members of the Commitee for the work that they have done, and to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making your statement.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your statement. I take it that you have accepted the recommendations. We would like particularly to thank the Committee, which has done a very good job of work, and has, if I may say so, fully justified its appointment.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Denis Herbert Howell, esquire, for Birmingham, Small Heath.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Development of East-West Trade

Mr. Currie: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 24th April, I shall call attention to the need for the development of East-West trade, and move a Resolution.

Timothy John Evans

Mr. V. Yates: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 24th April, I shall call attention to the case of Timothy John Evans, and move a Resolution.

Control of Expenditure (Persons with Small Fixed Incomes)

Dame Irene Ward: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 24th April, I shall call attention to the control of expenditure with particular relation to finding methods of supporting those living on small fixed incomes, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Bill to make temporary provision as to the operation of the law upon the Union of South Africa becoming a Republic outside the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. Sandys, supported by Mr. R. A. Butler and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet on Thursday at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday, do adjourn till Tuesday, 11th April.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

3.37 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I am aware that the terms of this Motion appear to be similar in form to that which has been moved on previous occasions, and with which the House has felt able to concur, but there are considerations which arise this year which lead my right hon. and hon. Friends and I to feel that the House ought to have a discussion on this matter before coming to a decision. There are reasons why it looks to us as though the Motion should not be approved by the House this year in this form.
There are various considerations which I wish to urge on the House. It cannot be forgotten or overlooked that the Government are moving that we should adjourn at the end of a period in which the House has not been permitted full discussion of important items of public business which have adversely affected many of our poorer and less-well-off citizens.
When the Government took the view, as they did, that we could not afford sufficient time to allow the various Health Service legislative actions to be debated in the House, it is rather peculiar, to say the least, that immediately after insisting that we do not have the time, and having dragooned their own majority to allow them to have a Guillotine, they should then propose that we should have the same Adjournment period as we have had in previous years, when this point has not arisen. If for no other reason, one would be bound to oppose the Motion to register a protest that when, clearly, time was available, the Government should have pretended that it was not and went on with the Guillotine.
Although the protest side of what I have to say is an important factor to bear in mind, it is not by any means the only consideration to be advanced against the Motion. The state of the business of the House is a powerful argument against allowing the Government to have this Motion. On today's


Order Paper, there are no fewer than 31 items of Government business still to be dealt with and no fewer than nine of which the Government propose to try to push through today.
There is not only the Motion which we are now considering and on which, I deduce, a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends will want to address the House; and I have no doubt that there will be views on the other side, too. After that, as a sort of supreme irony, we have a Motion proposing, in effect, a Guillotine for tomorrow. Today, therefore, the Government are proposing to adjourn for a lengthy period at the very same time as we prevent ourselves discussing in full and in detail the last stages tomorrow of the National Health Service Bill.
Then, the Government wish to take today the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill. None of us would want to prevent that Bill being taken today. Indeed, only the obstinacy of the Government and their failure to do their job competently on one occasion has prevented that important Measure being properly considered before and being law by now. After that, the Government want us to take the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill and the Patents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees) Bill [Lords], and they then want us to take the Human Tissue Bill. The Government then wish to take the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Bill and the Local Authorities (Expenditure on Special Purposes) (Scotland) Bill—all today.
It surely cannot be a sensible way to proceed that we should try to push all that lot through today and, at the same time, say that we are so easy with everything, that we are under such ordinary, normal procedure, that we can afford to take a normal Adjournment this time.
It is not only the amount of Government business. It is not my business to be very much concerned with whether the Government get their business. We have some opportunities to help in this respect and we shall use them. There are, however, a lot of other important issues which the House has not been allowed to discuss. I have had a look through the reports of the discussion on each of the last three Thursday afternoons following the business statement.
Let us look at the items for which hon. Members on both sides have, within the last three weeks, been pressing the Government to find time, on all of which the Home Secretary and Leader of the House has replied that we were so pressed—he uses almost the same statement each time about the pressure of business—that he is unable to find time.
Let me relate some of the issues for which the press of time is too great for the Government to find time at a moment when it is proposed to adjourn as though there was no pressure of business. There is the leasehold Motion which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and 98 other hon. Members have repeatedly been seeking an opportunity to discuss and on which the Home Secretary, when last pressed on the matter, said that the press of business was such that he could not give a favourable reply. And yet the question of leasehold enfranchisement is of tremendous importance, not only in Wales, but in England as well.

[That this House, noting with deep disquiet the cruel exploitation of leaseholders in South Wales by finance corporations and ground landlords who are demanding excessive premiums before renewing leases for a period of 80 years, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to repeal the Act of 1954 dealing with the leasehold system and to introduce a measure granting to leaseholders the right to purchase their freehold at a fair and reasonable cost.]

To show that these matters are not by any means confined to this side of the House, there is a Motion for which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), whom his place to support me, has several times pressed. This is a Motion, signed by the hon. Member and by hon. Members on both sides, calling on the Government to arrange that certain people on small fixed incomes should be exempted from paying the increased charges levied under the National Health Service Bill.

[That this House is of the opinion that persons of limited means should not be required to apply to the National Assistance Board for the refund of National Health Services charges, but that instead all persons entitled to treatment under the National Health Service whose total net income is below an agreed income tax


code number or its equivalent shall, on production of evidence of that income rating, be excused payment of all National Health Service charges.]

The Home Secretary told his hon. Friend that because of the press of business, he could not find time for that essentially humanitarian Motion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) asked the Home Secretary the other day, arising out of the business statement, whether he would find time for the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by a large number of hon. Members, concerning training and employment in Scotland, where there is a particularly pressing problem concerning young people.

[That this House, recognising that the increase in the number of school-leavers in Scotland in 1961 and 1962 will greatly exceed the anticipated net increase in jobs and recognising further that the number of apprenticeships available in recent years has fallen far short of the number of youths offering themselves for apprenticeship training, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take steps immediately to bring about a substantial increase in employment in Scotland, and in particular to take steps to ensure that our most valuable asset, the potential skill of our young people, is not lost to the nation by a failure to provide adequate employment with training for skill.]

Again, the Home Secretary said that he could not find time for this because, he said, the pressure of business was so great.

I hope that the House will regard it as happy that I should move from one side of the House to another. To show that there is no partiality, there was the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who, also, is not in his place to support me at this essential moment, who spearheaded a lot of hon. Members on his side of the House who were demanding an early debate on the Bill to deal with the proposed subsidy for the new Cunard liner before the tenders go out.

The point was made by the hon. Member that it would be improper for the Minister of Transport to go further still with his operations in this matter before the House of Commons had been able to discuss the Bill, and before it was clear even whether the House would approve

the Bill under which the Minister proposed to act. Again, the Home Secretary said that he could not provide a debate on that essential Bill before the administrative action was taken because of the press of business, and yet we are told today that because there is no such press of business we can go away in the ordinary way.

Then there is the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) who, again, is not in his place today, who has been tireless every Thursday in demanding time for a debate on a Motion concerning what we all recognise to be a tragic situation—unemployment in the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland.

[That this House notes with very grave concern the serious problems facing the British shipbuilding industry, and urges Her Majesty's Government to take all possible steps to remedy the situation.]

The hon. Member has had the same dusty answer from the Leader of the House as other hon. Members have done, that pressure of business was such that we could not even discuss the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland.

There is a variety of other issues. Some hon. Members opposite have been trying to get a debate on decimal coinage. There is the Albemarle Report on the Youth Service in England and Wales, for which, again, the Government say that they cannot find time. There is the Wolfenden Report on Sport and the Community, for which the Leader of the House has refused time. I know of two issues which I regard as of tremendous importance, both related subjects—the shipping industry and the shipbuilding industry—on both of which there is a tremendous case for urgent discussion. Requests for both discussions have been refused repeatedly week after week because, it was said, we had so much business to do that time could not be found.

In the light of all these things it seems to me that the ease with which the Leader of the House thought that he could nod to you, Mr. Speaker, and persuade us to go away for Easter as though we had no public business to conduct at all was little short of frivolous. An hon. Member opposite has given notice that he will raise something or other on the Adjournment because of the flippant answers he received. This


seems to me a flippant action on the part of the Leader of the House.

This matter does not end with business which we say we want to discuss and for which the Government say they cannot find time. Urgent matters of legislation are being held up because the Government cannot find time to conduct Government business. There is, for example, the Land Drainage Bill, in which many of us are very interested and about which we are deeply concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "The farmers."] It goes much wider than farming. The Bill is of enormous importance to millions of people who are affected by floods and drainage problems. It is a shocking business that we cannot get that Bill through the House of Commons.

I received the Report of the Heneage Committee on Land Drainage in England and Wales. I thanked the Committee for it and promised the chairman speedy action on it over ten years ago, when I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture. I think that the chairman has passed on since then. Certainly, in the ten years since the Government have been in power, they have been thinking about it. It must be the longest period of gestation ever known to any species of animal in this country. Finally, after ten years' gestation the Government produced a Bill in November last. It was read a Second time in November and it was out of Standing Committee in February of this year. But so well had the job been done that after that it was brought back to the House and recommitted in respect of a whole series of new Clauses which the Government had not even thought of up to then.

We had one day's debate on 21st February, on Recommittal. We spent seven hours on the Bill and we got through a few Clauses. At the end of the day I invited the House to agree to a Motion to report Progress because the Minister's answers were getting progressively more confusing and more profused than the Bill. This was a Motion which the Leader of the House immediately saw the wisdom of accepting, and the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to our constructive criticism which, he said, had helped so much that day.

This was the last that we saw of the Bill. It has now disappeared again. Since 21st February the Bill seems to have gone back into whatever dark hole it was in during the previous ten years. This is a tremendously important Bill. If the Government cannot find time to get through legislation of their own of this order what possible ground is there for suggesting to us that we should give ourselves the normal holiday at Easter?

Mr. Cyril Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman said that the chairman of the Heneage Committee had passed on. May I assure him that my predecessor is still very much alive and kicking?

Mr. Brown: I am glad to hear it. He was a great friend of mine and I am sorry that, as was done in the case of Mark Twain, I have exaggerated the news. I hope that, alive and kicking, he will do some kicking of the Government and get them to press on with the Bill.
The Land Drainage Bill is not the only piece of legislation which the Government cannot get through the House. There is the Road Traffic Bill. It is a very important and far-reaching Measure, but the Government were under such pressure that they could not introduce it into the House of Commons where it should have started its journey. We shall be involved in considerable difficulties with that Bill because the Government could not proceed with it in that way.
On the grounds of Government business alone, and the business that we want to see properly placed on the Statute Book, there is a great case against this Motion. But it does not end there. In the things that we are actually discussing we do not do ourselves justice.
The Leader of the House has referred to a statement that he made in the early hours of the morning the other day on the great, worrying problem of the state of our security services. That statement ought not to have been made in the early hours of the morning. It ought not to have been made in a wholly inadequate debate of an hour or so at that time of the day, but it was the only time available to us and the only opportunity to make a statement. It had to be done at that time because the Government


could not find adequate time during a proper part of the day for us to discuss it. There are, therefore, plenty of grounds for our not allowing this Motion to go through without discussion. It would be completely wrong to do so.
There are also problems overseas. No doubt the Leader of the House will be willing to give us a pledge that if anything deteriorates in the situation in Laos, for example, he will be willing to see that the House is immediately recalled. I would certainly expect such a pledge, but I am not at all sure that in the situation that exists in that area it is good enough to go away in this way without having a proper discussion and examination of the problem. As at present advised, I could not take the responsibility of advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to pass this Motion. We shall listen to what has to be said, and I hope that the Leader of the House will listen to what has to be said on this subject. I hope that we shall have from him some indication that he is willing to think again.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I should like to congratulate—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) rose before you called the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)?

Mr. Speaker: I did not see the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), but it does not affect the matter. I called the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

Mr. Silverman: I should like to begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), if I may still call him so, on the speech which he has just made. It is some encouragement to those of us who have been doing this kind of work on this sort of occasion for so long to find that, even so late, the leaders of the Opposition have seen the wisdom and advantage of it. I think that this is the first occasion on which a Motion of this kind, at any rate in post-war years, has been moved by the Front Bench on behalf of the official Opposition, though there

have been occasions, I frankly admit, on which a move of this kind, made very often by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), has been supported from the Front Bench.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper might have included a number of other things among those matters which the House has not been permitted to discuss adequately, though I appreciate that he said that he did not wish to take up too much of the time of the House.
We are spending an enormous amount of money this year—substantially more than in any previous year—on defence Estimates. The trouble that the House got itself into on that occasion was due entirely to the fact that time was so short and that we voted hundreds of millions of pounds on the nod, as simply and as formally as the Leader of the House would like to get this Motion through today. Whatever may be thought about the merits of the proposals—and on this side of the House not much is thought about the merits of the Government's defence policy, for we voted unanimously that we had no confidence that it afforded us any defence—no one can be in any doubt that the voting of sums of money of this size, for whatever purpose, should never, in the House of Commons, be a formal or nominal proceeding, carried through without proper examination and discussion.
On that occasion, there were also excluded by this procedure a whole series of Motions from Members opposite, sometimes on defence and sometimes on Civil Estimates, questioning expenditure on a variety of things about which they were quite properly anxious to have a lot more information. Indeed, even my right hon. Friend—I hope that he does not mind my revealing it—on one occasion came to me when we were protesting against what we thought was a misapplication of Standing Order No. 16, and told me that he thought we were quite right in our protest, though possibly we had not chosen the right occasion for making it, or, in his opinion, the right method. But, certainly, the House will one day have to reconsider the method by which it still purports to control and examine Government expenditure, when, in fact, it has no influence on it whatsoever.
It has become a mere pretence—almost a contemptible pretence, but certainly a contemptuous one—that the House of Commons nowadays really exercises control over Government expenditure. Why does it not do so? Nobody thinks, in principle, that it should not exercise such control. The reason is that we have the Guillotine procedure and all this lumping together in one Vote of millions of pounds for expenditure, some of which one may approve and some one may not approve but which one can either accept in total or reject in total.
The reason that we have to do it in that way is not one of principle, but one of time. The only defence ever offered for it is that we have not enough time. I do not want to develop that part of the argument, however, for some of my hon. Friends may wish to do so, and other hon. Members want to make their case.
I recognise that although this kind of opposition to this kind of Motion serves a profitable Parliamentary experience, it is not usually seriously intended. It is used as an occasion for airing grievances, or for calling the attention of the Government and of other people to outstanding important matters which cause anxiety and which will call some day for attention. But, at the end of the day, no one thinks that it is really worth while persisting with a notion, which I am sure my right hon. Friend did not intend, that we could adequately discuss all the matters he listed in his speech on Good Friday and Easter Monday. Clearly, we could not do that, and if we had the rest of next week there would still be many matters not dealt with, but which should be dealt with.
On this occasion, however, there is a substantial necessity for voting against this Motion, unless the Government are prepared to give the House certain assurances. I agree with my right hon. Friend in asking for an assurance that if the situation in the Far East were to deteriorate Parliament would be recalled, in spite of the fact that its adjournment is not for a long period. I agree with that request, but I do not think that it goes far enough. The House ought not to pass this Motion, or refrain from opposing it in the Division Lobby, unless the Government are prepared to

give specific assurances that they will not, in the absence of Parliament and before consulting Parliament, allow any British soldier to be involved in any military expedition in Laos or anywhere else.
I recognise that the situation today looks less anxious than it did. I recognise that this is certainly not the occasion to discuss any of the merits. I recognise, further, that, even if this were the occasion, the time might not be opportune, while negotiations look hopeful, for going too deeply into the merits of the situation or for discussing too brutally how it was allowed to occur or to develop.
Without discussing any of these things, however, it is not going too far to ask the Leader of the House to assure us that no risk will be taken that any British blood will be spilt, that no military adventures will be undertaken, and that we shall not be involved in any military adventures of a Korea-like pattern in the case of the dispute now proceeding in Laos. It would be wholly wrong if such a thing were to happen. It was disastrous enough on the last occasion, when the political assessment was fantastically and catastrophically mistaken. The results were disastrous, especially for this country.
I do not want to go into details, or to draw parallels, or even to define faint lines of distinction, but I hope that the Leader of the House's joviality at the moment is not intended to indicate any view on his part that this is not a very serious situation, and that Great Britain ought not to be military involved, committed or obliged, whatever ultimately may be decided upon, while Parliament is absent and without prior consultation with Parliament. Unless the Government are prepared to give the clearest and most specific assurances on that point, the House ought to reject the Motion.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I intervene only briefly because I think that it is right that at least one hon. Member on this side of the House should pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) for his speech—not so much for its contents, but for his ability to make it with his


tongue stuck so far in his cheek. It is obvious to anybody that the Recess on this occasion is short.

Mr. Nabarro: Much too short.

Mr. McAdden: Before my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gives way to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and agrees that we should sit over Easter and not have a Recess, I hope that he will dispatch his Parliamentary Private Secretary to the House of Commons Transport Office to find out how many Members opposite have already made their transport arrangements and how much discomfort sitting over Easter would cause them. I hope, therefore, that he will not be precipitate in responding to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions, and will remember that the right hon. Gentleman does not speak for his entire party on this or any other matter.
In those circumstances, it might be just as well if my right hon. Friend sticks to his decision to have a limited Recess, as he has already proposed, and does not worry unduly about those who are seeking to raise all kinds of matters which they know perfectly well they would not for one moment want to interfere with the Easter holidays which they have already arranged at places to which they have booked to go—whether behind the Iron Curtain or elsewhere. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear all those factors in mind before coming to a decision.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I hope that the Leader of the House will not be misled by that somewhat frivolous interruption—perhaps "flippant" is the better word. I have made arrangements to attend a conference of the National Union of Teachers, as I have done at Easter for the past twenty years. However, I believe that my duty is here and I and the conference would be willing—it would be an added pleasure to the conference—to put first things first.
When I had the pleasure of serving as a schoolmaster, the Leader of the House was the Minister of Education. I served on the executive of the National Union of Teachers and I used to appear before the right hon. Gentleman and I treated him with great respect. In those

days I did not know as much about him as I do now, but I have always held, and still do, that he is a man who tries to keep an open mind and is at least amenable to reason.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Used to.

Mr. Thomas: He is not sitting there playing with his papers and not listening. He is listening now.
I submit to the right hon. Gentleman an argument on behalf of the Principality of Wales. As the Leader of the House knows, week after week I have been rising in my place and, when I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, which I sometimes did—

Mr. Lipton: Always.

Mr. Thomas: Nearly always—I have pressed the right hon. Gentleman to let us discuss the Motion about leasehold enfranchisement in Wales. There are three hon. Members opposite who come from Wales. I do not see them this afternoon. It may be that they have gone to Wales.

Mr. Lipton: They have gone home.

Mr. Thomas: They have expressed anxiety about the leasehold problem in Wales and it is quite wrong that the right hon. Gentleman should ask me to go back to Cardiff and say that I have eleven days' holiday away from the House, but that the Minister keeps saying that there is not time to discuss leasehold enfranchisement. That is not a reasonable position in which to put any hon. Member.
It is interesting that it is the Celts—the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh—whom the Leader of the House is pushing aside when he makes us take this pre-emptory leave from the House of Commons. The hon. Member is now leaving, but we can manage without him, as we so often have to do.

Mr. Lipton: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) make it clear to which hon. Member he is referring?

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton).

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry that there are all these interruptions, because I am trying to put a reasoned case to the Leader of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a tremendous amount of correspondence from Wales about leasehold enfranchisement. He has given the appearance of being sympathetic and I believe that he is. I hope that he will not lightly disregard the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) to allow us at least one day longer to discuss this question.
It is not for me to speak for Ireland, but I have a deep affection for Northern Ireland—and Southern Ireland; to play safe—but there are hon. Members here who have the privilege of representing constituencies in Northern Ireland where there is a grievous problem. My friends who represent the Labour Party in the Northern Ireland Parliament write to me from time to time asking for questions to be raised here on their behalf. Coming from a part of South Wales which knows what unemployment is like, and how cruel it can be, I believe that the House ought not to say that we do not have time to discuss the problems of Northern Ireland and that we must have our holidays.
Apart from the problem of Northern Ireland, I hope that the Leader of the House will realise that he will have very much offended Wales if he is obstinate on this question. I support both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—

Mr. Nabarro: Still hon. Friend?

Mr. Thomas: He is my hon. Friend and always will be. He is one of the best Parliamentarians in the House. I have been a Member for five Parliaments and I know of no one with a greater sense of what is right and wrong in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Since it is a matter of right and wrong, I am sure that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) would feel that it is out of order in discussing this Motion.

Mr. Thomas: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that that is your Easter message to me, and I sit down.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin): I very much regret that I have not been able to be present in the House for a considerable time.
You will no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, that on previous occasions I have objected to the passing of Motions of this nature without full and proper consultation and consideration of the problems involving the Middle East. In particular, you will recall that in December I brought the attention of the House to the question of the manufacture of atomic weapons in the State of Israel. There are further anxieties which would make me disinclined to accept a Motion of this nature. They are that there will definitely be serious international trouble over the waters of the River Jordan.
I know that the Press of this country and other people do not like to mention these problems and it may be very valuable and helpful if I say that that is one of the major international problems which we will have to face. I am sorry that there has been very little discussion of the Middle East and I very much regret that the Motion will be passed without there being time for a debate on many of the problems in which our country is involved, not only with our Armed Forces in that area, but in the Middle East generally.
Judging by the reports which I have received concerning the progress of this honourable House in its discussions of Middle East policy, I have now changed my mind and decided that it would be a very good thing if this honourable House accepted this Motion and had a holiday for ten days, because I believe that it needs it.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I do not know what all the fuss is about. I assure the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) that I shall be available next week. I am not going away. I cannot afford it.
I have a simple solution to this problem. I regard the matter seriously and I am not speaking with my tongue in my cheek, or indulging in any acrobatics of that kind. I suggest that those of us who want to meet next week should be permitted to do so. There should be no question of compulsion and I am certain that there are volunteers on both sides of the House. I hear them all around me. The only stipulation I make is that neither of the Front Benches should be


present. We can then proceed to debate these intricate subjects of vital significance to the nation and the world at large, which we are prevented from doing on normal occasions.
I have argued this matter with the Leader of the House on previous occasions. For many years I have suggested that far too much legislation of a trivial character passes through this assembly. Much of it has no significance whatever, makes no impact on the public mind, and, in the long run, is completely forgotten by those for whom it is intended. Let us take some of the matters to which my right hon. Friend referred.
There is the question of pensions for sheriffs in Scotland. Have not they enough already? Why should we trouble about them? Then there is the Human Tissue Bill. I do not know what that refers to, and I doubt whether anybody else does—

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Why not have a look at it?

Mr. Shinwell: That is an idea. We could discuss it next week.

Mr. G. Brown: As I understand it, the Human Tissue Bill is a piece of legislation which makes it possible for people to bequeath organs of their bodies, on death, for use by other people who lack those organs. This is a very important Bill, which can provide a relief which is not at the moment available to a very tragic group of people.

Mr. Shinwell: I am unacquainted with pathological subjects, but I defer to my right hon Friend's knowledge of the matter. No doubt there is a human aspect to be considered. But I would much prefer to be here next week, on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday for that purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Monday?"] Not Monday. I cannot be here on Monday. I have arranged to go out with my wife then. With great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House my wife takes precedence in these matters. But on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday I will suggest the subjects to be discussed.

Mr. Lipton: A free vote.

Mr. Shinwell: There need be no vote at all. This would be a debating assembly, where we could discuss

matters of primary importance to this country and to the world. There is the question of shipping and shipbuilding. We have tried to arrange for a debate on these twin subjects for a long time, but have been prevented from doing so. Surely time can be found for a debate on an important matter of that sort.
There is our economic position. It is true that we shall shortly be discussing the Budget, but we never have a thoroughgoing discussion of our economic position. We are very grateful to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates), who is now paying us a visit. We have missed his criticism of the Government.

Mr. S. Silverman: He thinks that he needs a holiday already.

Mr. Shinwell: Now that he has returned to this country I hope that he will avail himself of the opportunities open to him. He raised the question of the Middle East, which we cannot debate on its merits, but which is a danger spot if ever there was one. It is as dangerous as the area referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I admit that there are all the elements of danger inherent in the situation in that part of the world, and it would be a very good idea to have a debate on it.
I suggest that it would be imposing too much upon you, Mr. Speaker, to expect you to be present next week while these general debates are taking place, but an understudy can be found quite easily. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, who is very popular with hon. Members on both sides of the House—there are some exceptions, but we need not be worried about them—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is now outside the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps I should have read the Motion before I rose.
There is one matter upon which I speak with the utmost seriousness. I appeal to the Leader of the House to arrange for debates on the very important topics which I have referred when we return. This is a debating assembly. It is a sounding board for various topics which are of interest to the general public and to hon. Members on both sides of the


House. There are many Motions on the Order Paper. Are we never to debate them? What does the Leader of the House say when he is appealed to on Thursday afternoons when questions relating to business are asked? He says that a debate may take place "if time can be found"—and time never can be found—or "if the Opposition use a Supply Day for the purpose." There are occasions when a Supply Day can validly be used, but it is generally for the Government to bring forward topics so that the House and the country can be acquainted with the views of hon. Members.
I hope that that happens. I have no expectation of the right hon. Gentleman's agreeing that the Motion should be defeated, but he may like to consider my suggestion that if a score of Members, or perhaps a hundred, come here next Tuesday morning, and somebody can be found to take the Chair, we should select a number of subjects for debate on Tuesday and the succeeding two days. We could have a worth-while debate of a kind which is not usually provided for in the House. I hope that something on these lines can be done.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: This debate has been very good-humoured, even good-tempered, but it is the type of debate that makes people outside the House feel that we are very foolish, and are wasting our own time and that of the nation. In the public imagination this kind of debate is coupled with those all-night sittings which produce so few results, and which make people outside think that we are acting very stupidly.
Not long ago a serious-minded person told me that he thought that we were like a lot of silly schoolchildren, although we were supposed to be trying to run the affairs of a great Empire. Although the debate has been very good-humoured, and has been taken in good part by hon. Members on both sides, we know that the indignation which the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) tried to show was quite "phoney", and that the right hon. Gentleman knew that it was.

Mr. G. Brown: I cannot let that suggestion pass. The hon. Member has said that my speech was "phoney". He is entitled to his point of view on that, but

he is not entitled to say that I knew that it was "phoney". That is an unfair suggestion, and I hope that the hon Member will withdraw it.

Mr. Osborne: I certainly withdraw it, if the right hon. Member is so touchy on the subject. Although he objected to the length of the Adjournment, he never said on what days he would like us to sit. Would he like us to sit on Good Friday, like Pontius Pilate? On how many days does he want us to sit? People outside are saying that we are just playing with our time.
Ordinary back benchers feel that a great deal more could be said, and seriously said, by back benchers if only those on the Front Benches could make speeches lasting less than one hour.

Mr. Lipton: Impossible.

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made a most important suggestion. He said that there does not seem to be time for the House to have any control over the expenditure of money, and that vast sums are voted automatically. Like him, I would like more time to be given to a discussion on that subject, but I would remind him that whereas, in previous days, it was a function of back benchers to check spending by the Executive, back benchers today urge the Executive to spend more and more. Our function has changed completely. Instead of our being the watchdogs of the public purse we have become the most extravagant spenders of all. Each of us—

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member has probably forgotten that four of my hon. Friends and myself are in our present position because we voted against an enormous amount of public expenditure—without his support.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) to relate what he is saying to the Motion.

Mr. Osborne: The Motion proposes that we should have an Adjournment of eleven days. I am opposing the suggestion that it should be shorter. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that I did not support him when he opposed the expenditure of so much money, but may I remind him that when I opposed the expenditure of public money on the Lancashire cotton industry he made no protest at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This bears no resemblance to being in order. The hon. Member should be good enough to remember what is the Motion before the House.

Mr. W. Yates: If, on a Motion of this nature, it were to go out from the House that back bench Members are not in a position to control public expenditure as part of their duties and that they encourage public expenditure, it would create a very bad impression.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing nothing of the kind on this Motion. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the rules which we have to keep.

Mr. Osborne: I am sorry if I have transgressed. I will bring myself back into order. I am sorry if I said anything contrary to the rules.
While this debate is quite amusing, outside the House it is misunderstood, and it is thought that we are spending valuable time which we ought to be spending on a serious matter. The right hon. Member for Easington suggests that we should come back on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week. I challenge him: if the Press were not allowed to report the debate, neither he nor his hon. Friends would come here to speak.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to stress the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that we should not agree to this Motion unless we are given a definite assurance from the Leader of the House that no British soldiers will be sent to Laos and that we shall not be involved in any warlike action in that part of the world.
I say that because of the speech by the Foreign Secretary in Bangkok which has been reported in today's issue of The Times. From this speech it is obvious that we are on the brink of a very serious situation. The Foreign Secretary said that events in Laos face us with a "serious and explosive situation". In view of the fact that we are faced with this "serious and explosive situation"—in the words of the Foreign Secretary—I do not think that we should adjourn until we are given a definite assurance by the Leader of the House that we shall not be involved in the

slightest way in any military operations in that part of the world. If we are not given that assurance, then I assure the House that hon. Members sitting in this part of the House will divide on that point alone.
We have been told by the Prime Minister of Australia that we must not shrink from force of arms in meeting the Communist challenge in that part of the world. I suggest that behind all the headlines there is a substantial risk of this country being committed to a war on the lines of Korea. The correspondent of The Times writes today:
It is your Correspondent's belief that the British Government have taken in principle the decision to commit armed forces as requested.
Is this so? If we cannot be given a definite assurance on the point by the Leader of the House, we are justified in voting against a Motion by which the House would adjourn before we have an assurance that we shall not be involved in a chain of events as tragic and disastrous as Korea.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) made an important point when he started by suggesting that this discussion was good fun, but that it denigrated Parliament. Hon. Members on this side of the House, who believe that the House should not adjourn at this stage for so long a time, do so not for reasons of amusement. There is a strong feeling on this side that there are many things which the House ought to discuss, and that there is a variety of points which hon. Members wish to raise.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) referred to the situation in Laos. We can have all sorts of arguments about the situation there, and whose responsibility it is, but surely it would be a very strange man who said that this was a light-hearted subject and was put forward with a lack of interest in Parliament. This is an important issue. What is important is not the allocation of responsibility for the situation which exists in that part of the world, but the fact that hon. Members are going with their buckets and spades on holiday without having discussed the matter. It


is a serious problem which should be taken seriously.
What damages the House and Parliamentary government is not all-night sittings or arguments about whether the House should adjourn; it is the fact that Her Majesty's Ministers increasingly treat these issues of great importance with a degree of contempt which is appalling.
We propose to go into recess a matter of days after we have had to apply a Guillotine to issues which affect every man, woman and child in the country. How does it arise? In itself, it is important. Two very small Bills were produced by Her Majesty's Ministers which involved enormous changes in the attitude towards the social services. They were Bills which, rightly or wrongly, leaving aside the merits of the case, aroused considerable feeling on this side of the House, and my hon. Friends wanted to discuss them. The Guillotine was introduced and difficulties arose, in which you yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were involved, simply because the Patronage Secretary looked at his watch and decided that it was time that he had his cocoa and went to bed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. The hon. Member must keep to the Motion. What happened then has happened, and it will not be affected by the period of the Adjournment.

Mr. Marsh: I must respect your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I submit that the basis of our argument against the Government's Motion on this issue is that the Government are treating major issues which come before Parliament as not meriting debate by the House. I am quoting an example when the House was placed in difficulty not because it was procedurally difficult to debate a subject, but because Ministers and other hon. Members opposite did not want to debate it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that we could come back during the Easter Recess, and that he did not understand what all the fuss was about. I do not understand what all the fuss is about, either. If the Government withdraw the

Motion it will not affect hon. Members opposite. We discussed the Health Service charges without their presence and we had a long series of debates on the contributions without their presence; they were sleeping downstairs and elsewhere. They did not speak in the debate.
We could have three or four days' debate next week without their presence and without their speaking. Indeed, I do not think that it is coincidental that the standard of debate was probably higher when they were not here than when they were here. I support my right hon. Friend; it does not matter whether they are here or not. Her Majesty's Opposition are quite prepared to come here and to discuss the issues which affect the nation and which are of importance to the country. The Leader of the House can take up the challenge if he wishes, for the Opposition are quite prepared to put Parliament first.
It is a perfectly simple issue, one which can easily be tested. Whether the right hon. Gentleman will remain Chairman of the Conservative Party after testing Her Majesty's Opposition is doubtful. Nevertheless, there are a number of issues which Parliament should discuss before adjourning for the Recess.
We have seen in recent weeks a major change in the attitude of the Government towards the social services and the methods of financing them. This is important. Up to and including the last General Election we were all on the same side over the social services. Hon. Members on this side supported them, and up to the General Election and until the results were announced right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in favour of them. But in the last few weeks there has been a change. A major body of Conservative opinion has begun to suggest that there should be charges on all the social services, in particular on education. The Bow Group, for example, has suggested that there should be a charge on education.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I find it very difficult to connect the hon. Gentleman's remarks with the procedural Motion before the House.

Mr. Marsh: What I am trying to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I seek your guidance on this—is to point out that in recent weeks there has been a major shift


among Government supporters in their attitude towards the financing of the social services. I seek to suggest that this is a situation which was never put before the electorate and which the electorate has never had an opportunity of discussing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may or may not be so, but I find difficulty in connecting it with the date of the Adjournment.

Mr. Marsh: I am trying to suggest that we might well continue to meet during the Easter Recess so that hon. Gentlemen opposite who want to put the case for a charge on primary education of 5s. a week may be permitted to do so and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House may vote against it.
Even if that point—I do not want to be difficult about this, Mr. DeputySpeaker—is regarded as not important, there are other issues which the House should discuss. Is it, for example, reasonable that the House should adjourn for Easter at a time when there are major difficulties in Central Africa and no fewer than 87 of the Government's supporters have their names to a Motion of, virtually, no confidence in the Colonial Secretary?
Is it right and proper that when Central Africa is faced with difficulties which may well result in bloodshed, which are certainly very difficult and which affect people of all shades of opinion in this country, we should have a situation in which the Colonial Secretary, in the eyes of many in Central Africa, does not know who his friends are? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Opposition support him, but he is not sure how many hon. Members on the Government benches support him.
I submit that it is very wrong indeed that we should go into recess when this difficulty exists and when these problems continue in Central Africa while, at the same time, we have a situation here where 87 opponents of the Government's policy in Central Africa have no opportunity of taking their consciences through the Division Lobby on the issue.
While we of the Opposition may well have difficulties from time to time, we have not got a situation where large

numbers of us object to the occupants of our Front Bench and are then coy about saying so. The last thing of which anyone could accuse the opposition is hypocrisy. The Colonial Secretary sits on the Government Front Bench in borrowed time, knowing that 87 knives are pointed at his back. We ought to use some part of the Easter Recess to discuss colonial affairs so that the Colonial Secretary can go to Northern Rhodesia, speaking on behalf of Parliament, not only Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is not the only one who is going there. There is a private company organising trips by hon. Members. I understand that it is known as "Voice and Vision". I know nothing about it, but I have heard about meetings in different parts.

Mr. Marsh: One of my difficulties about replying to my hon. Friend is that, without going too much into detail, I have also been on that trip. All I would say to my hon. Friend is that when we came back from Central Africa—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This has no relevance to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Marsh: I assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I would not myself have raised that point.
I move now to another very important matter. We are discussing the procedural Motion to adjourn for the Easter Recess. I do not regard this as a particularly humorous dispute between the two sides of the House. The country is at present in considerable danger. It is in danger from difficulties of involvement in foreign conflicts. It is certainly in danger of considerable economic difficulties. The House is not discussing all these issues with the amount of attention that it should.
The argument of the Opposition is that it is not denigrating Parliament merely to suggest that we should devote more time to discussing the issues which face Parliament, but it is denigrating Parliament when we get to the stage where we are faced with half a dozen Measures in one day when the Government Front Bench knows that we cannot discuss any of them with the detail they merit.
My final point involves the question of defence, a subject with which we on this side of the House are intensely concerned. We have different attitudes to many aspects of the subject, but all of us on this side believe that our country should be defended. There are all sorts of arguments as to how it should be done; but that is reasonable.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that this has much to do with the Motion before the House.

Mr. Marsh: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I suggest that there is a very close involvement with the Motion. Within the last week the House has been told that, however much it discusses deefnce and methods of defence, we have no national security, that the security services for which the Prime Minister is responsible are virtually non-existent. Although we have been promised a statement tomorrow by the Leader of the House on the recent spy trial which has filled the newspapers—apart from the little pieces which have demonstrated the decline of the British middle classes in other fields—the House has not yet had an opportunity of discussing one of the most serious defence situations which has ever faced it, and it does not appear to be likely to be given a chance to discuss it.
You may well ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why it is particularly important that we should discuss this subject immediately if the right hon. Gentleman is tomorrow to make a statement about the setting up of a committee of inquiry to deal with the revelations about which we have heard. Within the last week or two we have had a case which has received national prominence, from which it appears that it was possible for a person in the employment of Her Majesty's Embassy in Warsaw to be removed from there because he was apparently a drunkard and mixed with all sorts of dubious company and was regarded as not a politically stable and safe person, and then to be placed in the Underwater Weapons Research Establishment at Portland.
Some of us feel that this is a matter of such urgency that it ought to be discussed in this House. But, with respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it will not be dis-

cussed tomorrow. What will happen will be that the right hon. Gentleman will rise, with his usual degree of urbanity, and tell us that there will be a committee to inquire into this. Then, when we begin to ask awkward questions, someone who will be in the Chair will get up and tell us that it is not the time to debate the issue. But we want to debate the issue.
We have had another example, the case of a woman who had disciplinary action taken against her because she took home for the weekend, presumably as light reading, secret classified information from a Government establishment. She brought it back to her place of employment, but she was discovered, and she appeared before a disciplinary court and was suspended from classified work for six months. At the end of that time she also gravitated to the Underwater Weapons Research Establishment at Portland—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot go into details of these cases. He can only call attention to them.

Mr. Marsh: All I am trying to suggest is that these details, which, I think, are important points of principle, show that this country, far from arguing about methods of defence, should realise that it has had no defence secrets for probably the last six years—

Mr. S. Silverman: Probably longer.

Mr. Marsh: Probably longer. My hon. Friend and I are in complete agreement on this question.

Mr. W. Yates: Why?

Mr. Marsh: Why not? I am quite convinced that if hon. Gentlemen opposite ever break their graveyard unanimity and start discussing the serious issue among themselves, they will find that it is impossible to preserve the monolithic unanimity of which they are so proud. They will also find that it is nothing to be proud of.
We on this side of the House believe that Parliament may well find itself faced with criticism which will stem not from the fact that it discusses such issues but because it does not. So long as there are major issues affecting the people of this country, hon. Members on this side


of the House are prepared to place Parliament first and come here to discuss them. We believe that the Government have made such an appalling mess during their period of office, and that the country is in such danger in relation to foreign affairs and economic matters, that Her Majesty's Opposition should have the opportunity of putting the Government right.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I do not intend to deal with foreign affairs and defence, not because I consider them unimportant but because there are three matters—one of which has appeared on the Order Paper for a considerable time—affecting Scotland—to which I wish to refer. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) would not regard that as trivial because a fortnight ago he gave a word of support when I was arguing that we might discuss an Opposition Motion relating to the training of apprentices and the provision of employment for young people.

[That this House, recognising that the increase in the number of school-leavers in Scotland in 1961 and 1962 will greatly exceed the anticipated net increase in jobs and recognising further that the number of apprenticeships available in recent years has fallen far short of the number of youths offering themselves for apprenticeship training, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take steps immediately to bring about a substantial increase in employment in Scotland, and in particular to take steps to ensure that our most valuable asset, the potential skill of our young people, is not lost to the nation by a failure to provide adequate employment with training for skill.]

We have had before us for a considerable time, the Guest Committee's Report dealing with the question of licensing in Scotland, which proposes tremendous new departures. The Committee was presided over by a distinguished Scottish judge. So far, the Government has failed to provide an opportunity to discuss the Report.

The Leader of the House is bound to be aware that there is a threat of a teachers' strike in Scotland because of great unrest not only among teachers, but regarding the whole educational

system in Scotland. One would think this a matter of such great importance that the Government would provide time for a debate.

In dealing briefly with the Motion on the training and employment of young people in Scotland, which is signed by every hon. Member on this side of the House who represents a Scottish constituency, and which has been on the Order Paper for a considerable time, I wish only to refer to yesterday's proceedings in support of our claim that this Motion should be debated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) asked the Minister of Labour:
… what was the ratio of wholly unemployed boys of 18 years and under to the number of notified unfilled vacancies for boys in Glasgow and Birmingham respectively, at the latest convenient date.
The Minister replied:
At mid-March this year, for every 100 wholly unemployed boys, 97 in Glasgow and 1,004 in Birmingham."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1961; Vol. 637, c. 949]

A similar Question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), comparing Lanarkshire with Warwickshire—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is going far beyond the terms of the Motion. We cannot debate these details.

Mr. Hoy: I do not wish to, and I would not seek to, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I chose these three instances to show why a debate was necessary. I was about to say to the Leader of the House that the figure for Lanarkshire was 88 vacancies and for Warwickshire, 1,070.
In addition, we find that in Scotland there are three boys of 18 and under who have been unemployed for more than six months for every one in the Midlands. Because of that we ask that time be provided to give hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies the opportunity to discuss the need to provide decent and adequate training facilities, and to make the greatest use of the skill of our young people in Scotland by providing them with employment. It is no use complaining that young people hang about street corners, if society fails to provide them with opportunities to work.
When we have so many young people under 18 registered as unemployed for six months, surely it is not asking too much of the Leader of the House to provide time in the near future to discuss this important Scottish problem.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I can well understand why right hon. and hon. Members opposite support this Motion, because from Monday dinner-time until Thursday night a considerable number of them spend a lot of time seeking "pairs". Sometimes they give the impression that they would not mind if the House did not sit at all, that it would be very convenient for them if we did not have to come here. I do not class the Leader of the House in that category. We regard him as one who tries to understand and appreciate the seriousness with which some hon. Members approach their tasks. I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House will pay due attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had to say.
This afternoon, we are in precisely the same position as was the House in August, 1956. I remember that in the debate on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House hon. Members on this side of the House were concerned about what was likely to happen over Suez. We tried to get certain assurances, but we were unable to get them. As you will recall, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, while this House was in recess decisions were made committing British troops to the most foolish, costly and senseless escapade of the present century. Many of us feel that there may be a similar decision made while this House is in recess over Easter. We feel that the Cabinet may decide to commit British troops to fighting in Laos without the House having any opportunity to discuss the matter.
The Leader of the House will appreciate the position, because we know that in 1956 he was the only wise man in the Cabinet. We know that he resisted the decision which was made then, and that he paid a heavy price for doing so. We hope that in the present situation the right hon. Gentleman will take precisely the same line that he took over Suez. We should like to have that assurance from him this afternoon and

to know that so far as he is concerned no British troops will be committed to fighting in South-East Asia at least before the House of Commons has had an opportunity of discussing the position.
It is very easy to get into a struggle of that kind, but it is not always easy to get out of it. The consequences are not always weighed up as seriously as they should be. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Leader of the House for an assurance that no decision to commit British troops in Laos will be made until such time as this House has had an opportunity of discussing it. We know what the consequences could be. If the consequences of intervention there were as serious and tragic as in the case of Suez, it might mean irretrievable disaster to this country. The reasons we are advancing why the Leader of the House should give us these assurances are serious and we are entitled to have them because of past experience when a Motion of this kind has been discussed.
Another matter I wish to raise is the question of private Members who have taken the trouble to bring Bills before this House, to which the House has accorded its good wishes. What chance have private Members who have gone to all the trouble of preparing Bills of ever seeing those Bills become law if recesses like this are to be undertaken at a time when the legislative programme is chock-a-block? Yesterday, in the Guardian, we read that the rumour is going round that the Leader of the House might have to curtail the Whitsun Recess and, instead of having the normal two weeks, this year we may have only one week because the programme of legislation is so heavy.
In the same newspaper there was talk of the Government having to drop the new Road Traffic Bill because there would not be time for it this Session. It seems an appalling situation that, while the Government's legislative programme is chock-a-block, and there are Bills which are urgent, vital and necessary for the safety and protection of our citizens which cannot go through because there is no time, the Leader of the House is recommending ten days' Recess.
There is another reason why we should not adjourn. As one of my hon. Friends


has said, we spent some weary nights discussing the National Health Service Bill and a Bill to increase contributions for the Service. If the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) were in the Chamber now, I would refer to what he said. He said that people outside the House thought that we were foolish. They must think that we are foolish when we spend night after night discussing the Bill and then have ten days' holiday. How much better it would be to arrange the business so that we have more days to discuss legislation and a shorter holiday on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Louth went on to say that there was no result from our all-night sittings. That was not a reflection on the Opposition, but a reflection on the Government. It meant that the Government paid no heed to the arguments we advanced They were prepared to make no concession to our point of view, no matter how valid and strong were the arguments we advanced. Bills had to be pushed through during the long, weary hours of the night. We might as well be a Reichstag for all the improvements the Opposition were able to bring about.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Does my hon. Friend also agree that not only are the Government not prepared to listen to our arguments, but in the Bill in question they put in a Clause giving the Minister power to alter present legislation by regulations later?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that arises on this procedural Motion.

Mr. Fernyhough: I quite agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but that emphasises the argument I am putting, that the House becomes less and less a legislative council and Orders in Council become more and more important, with all the powers which they give to the Executive.
Another matter I would like to raise is the graduated pension scheme which will come into operation while the House is in recess. Millions of workers will get a great shock. At the beginning of April they will find how much they have to pay.

Mr. Lipton: They do not know yet.

Mr. Fernyhough: They will find how little they will get and compare it with

how much they have to pay. They will be very cross because they will believe they have been swindled and sold a pup. When that reaction takes place, hon. Members should be in the House to voice the reactions of their constituents to this latest Government swindle.
Finally, may I remind the House that I represent a constituency which has tragic memories of what happened in the inter-war years, when the shipbuilding industry was allowed to decline. For years after the war, people believed that those anxieties and apprehensions would never have to be borne again, but now, on Tyneside, Clydeside and Merseyside and in Northern Ireland, the same fears are once again becoming manifest because of the decline in this industry. Although Thursday after Thursday, when the Leader of the House announces the business for the next week, those of us who represent shipbuilding and ship-repairing constituencies have pleaded with the Government to find time to discuss the industry, the Leader of the House has not been able to meet our request.
Before hon. Members go away for the Easter Recess we ought to have a statement from the Government about what they intend to do for this basic industry. Is it to be allowed to go into a gradual decline and to wither away, or have the Government some plans for stabilising the position? Can they give some hope to the people who are now fearful about the future?
These are serious questions. We are entitled to a proper and serious answer from the Leader of the House. Until he can give us the assurances which my hon. Friends and I are seeking, he has no right to expect the Motion to go through without a Division.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), when opening the debate, quite properly expressed in dignified form the reasons why we feel that the Government ought to be criticised at this stage for the bungle they are making of the legislative programme. Doubts have been expressed by a number of hon. Members. Two hon. Members opposite, who, I am sorry to say, have now left the Chamber, expressed doubt as to the propriety of this kind of debate.
The Leader of the House, with all his wealth of experience behind him, knows full well that it is quite legitimate for Her Majesty's Opposition on an occasion such as this to take the opportunity of drawing public attention to the pile-up of Government business due to the policy pursued. I want to add a number of other reasons to those already advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends as to why I think we are entitled today to raise the strongest objection to the Motion, in a form which has ample precedent in the House.
My right hon. Friend submitted to the House a most formidable list of legislation which is held up for one reason or another. We are on the eve of a short Recess of ten or eleven days. We all enjoy the Recess and look forward to it. We are already faced with a pile-up of legislation, there being seven or eight Bills listed on today's Order Paper for discussion today. What will be the state of affairs after Easter? The Leader of the House knows perfectly well that he is having some anxious moments when he looks at the time available between Easter and the rising of the House for the long Summer Recess, with Whitsuntide intervening for a week or ten days.
Immediately after Easter we shall have the Budget which, for all we know, may be a lucky bag for some of the rich financiers and speculators in the City of London. The Budget may be the occasion for distributing some of the £49 million which is to be raised spuriously and bogusly by increasing the National Health Service charges.
I am not entitled to discuss the merits of the Budget. That would be anticipating what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have to tell us. What I am entitled to say on this occasion is that we shall discuss the Budget for a full week. There will be the Budget Resolutions and the general debate on the Budget, to be followed later by the time-honoured procedure of introducing the Finance Bill and taking all its stages on the Floor of the House, including the Committee stage. Does that mean that, faced with the programme which has now to be dealt with within the timetable of this Parliament, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will escape in-

evitably from what we all anticipate will happen—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I find it very difficult to relate the hon. Member's remarks to the procedure Motion now before the House about the Easter Recess.

Mr. Price: I thought that I was being extremely correct by following, as near as I could, the precedent set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper. I am not dealing with legislation in retrospect. I am dealing with prospective legislation and the programme we shall be faced with immediately after Easter.
I will call the attention of the House to a few of the major Measures which we have to fit into the few months ahead of us, in addition to the Budget and the Finance Bill. First, there is the Rating and Valuation Bill. I have had the pleasure of sitting in Committee on that Bill. I say "pleasure" advisedly, because I have taken some pleasure in it, although I have experienced some pain as well. I sat with hon. Members on both sides since before Christmas considering the Bill. We sat for week after week, month after month, and a fortnight ago we concluded the Committee stage, after examining in great detail all the complex and highly technical devices which are being put forward by the Minister of Housing to avoid the possible consequences of the next General Election.

Mr. Lipton: Were there any Closures?

Mr. Price: No. We did not have any Closures. I am not complaining about Closures.
We discussed the Bill in a perfectly rational, civilised and cultivated way. That is the way in which the British public expects the House of Commons to do its business. We took rather a long time over the Bill. There are all the complexities of this one Measure and the prospect which faces the British public of finding out very shortly that the valuation of ordinary houses is likely to rise by 200 or 300 per cent. in a couple of years' time. We shall need a lot of time in the House to discuss the later stages of the Bill. I will not pass any further comment on that, because if I did I should be out of order.
Then there is the Land Drainage Bill, which is still held up. My right hon. Friend referred to this Bill. It has been held up for some weeks. We begin to wonder whether the Land Drainage Bill has not "gone down the drain" for good, because there seems little prospect that there will be time to deal with it, according to the Leader of the House's statements to the House. He says the same things every Thursday afternoon. The Bill is in abeyance. It is in a state of suspended animation.
Then there is the precious Measure which was given a Second Reading yesterday, namely, the Housing Bill. What will be the fate of that in the coming months? I sat in the House yesterday discharging my duty in a humble way. I sat here listening to others, because I did not want to talk. The Minister of Housing and Local Government, at one period, sat in a lonely state, with not a single Tory Member supporting him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is far from the procedure Motion.

Mr. Price: I do not want to pursue that further, except to say that the Housing Bill will take us some time, when hon. Members become interested and see what is involved in it. The general public will write hundreds, perhaps thousands, of letters to hon. Members who are sent here to represent their views.
Then there is the other Achilles heel of the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity as Home Secretary. He is almost a Pooh-Bah in his various offices. We give him a good deal of consideration, because we realise how hard pressed he is in discharging his functions. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I say that with great sincerity. Nevertheless, he has the Licensing Bill on his plate. That is one of the most explosive pieces of social legislation which the country has been faced with for many years. It will require much consideration in the House when it returns from Committee.
Then there is the Criminal Justice Bill, again under the prerogative of the Home Secretary. When I sat upstairs for several months last year considering the Betting and Gaming Bill I heard the Home Secretary heavily criticised for not attending Standing Committees. The

right hon. Gentleman is always being criticised for not attending Standing Committees in person, but sending the Minister of State or the Joint Under-Secretary to represent him. The Home Secretary ought to be present on major Measures. He is correct in saying that he has not the time to be present. However, if he has not time to be present in Committee, when major pieces of legislation are being discussed in great detail, how can we expect him to have the time to come to the House and explain the Measures to us with the authority and knowledge which he should command?
Then there is the Weights and Measures Bill. This is a most important Bill which seeks to iron out, remove or mitigate many of the malpractices and sharp practices which are being conducted in giving short weight and short measure to the British public in all the consumer goods which are sold over the counter.
I do not pretend that my list is exhaustive. If I sought to make it so, this debate would go on for a long time. I could place before the House a further list of massive, important, domestic legislation that I fear will not get the attention to which it is entitled.
Speaking of prospective legislation, we have yet to deal with the Road Traffic Bill. What has happened to that? Many of these things may be desirable, but they may be contentious and give rise to all kinds of arguments on matters of deep principle about which we respect each other's point of view. My fear is that they will not get the attention that they should if the public are to be kept informed of these principles.
The hon. Members for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) and for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) protested rather miserably that to debate this Motion now was an abuse of the House—

Mr. Lipton: If my hon. Friend looks across the Chamber, he will find that those two hon. Members have not the time to be here to listen to his very wise remarks.

Mr. Price: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I do not know whether my remarks are wise or not—I leave that to the House—but they are factual, and one of the first things I learned when I came to the


House was to be right about the facts before expressing opinions on them. We try to get the Government to show some respects for facts.
Facts apart, there are procedural matters. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will recollect many occasions when you, or Mr. Speaker himself, have occupied that Chair for many hours of tortuous debate that must have tried your patience very much. There have bean occasions when, at 3.30 a Whip has moved, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"—and six or seven hours later he has still been there—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but, of course, that is not the Motion now before the House.

Mr. Price: I was trying to illuminate my argument in that way because we have been criticised for using this occasion, when a simple Motion is before the House, to raise grievances that should be raised.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), in a very interesting and good-humoured speech, presented in his own inimitable fashion, suggested that if some hon. Members took objection to going away next week to have ten days' holiday they should be allowed to be a sort of franc tireurs—freelances who could enjoy themselves here whilst those who wanted to go away could be given their penny and their bun and go on holiday.
I have always had a more serious regard for the work of the House. To most of us, there is no satisfaction in merely talking; merely listening to the sweet music of our own voices. I may say that I do not speak a great deal—even now, I am speaking at greater length than I had intended. There is no good in people regarding this House merely as a forum of debate in order to get more publicity for certain matters. There is no point in a debate unless it leads to some action, or positive suggestion that can he resisted, if necessary, in Parliamentary fashion, or about which we can get our own way if we are sufficiently zealous in putting our case.
I strongly disapprove of anybody giving the slightest credence to the idea that Parliament should be merely a plat-

form on which people talk and listen to each other and, at the end of the day, nothing is done. That is not what Parliament is for. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will forgive me when I say that he was probably only "pulling our legs".
The Leader of the House is under an obligation to tell us more clearly why this Motion should be passed. If this bungling by the Administration goes on—this cluttering up of the legislative machinery as it has been cluttered up in recent months—I think that we can look forward, after Easter and in the months ahead, to a long succession of Guillotine Motions. I would not be surprised if the Government allowed their business to pile up in this way and then, when they found it impossible to dispose of their programme, came forward with Guillotine Motions in respect of Measures that should be discussed at greater length.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tell us clearly what the Government's plans are for disposing of the present programme and whether the House will have sufficient time adequately to consider the important Measures to which I have referred.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The most serious reason for rejecting this Motion, unless proper assurances are given by the Government, is the situation in Laos, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and strongly pressed by two others of my hon. Friends. I want to return to that aspect in a few minutes.
There are other reasons why this Motion should be debated. I do not think that the House would agree with the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) that because this debate was in some sense good-humoured—because we are not exactly tearing each others' eyes out—it was not a serious debate. That view could not be held at all. The hon. Gentleman's implication that every Parliamentary day should be tidily cut and dried, that business should go through on the dot, and that everybody should be able to know in advance what the timetable was, gives a false idea of the House of Commons.
If Governments are to be kept in order it is necessary that they should always be subject to having their timetables upset. That is necessary when Governments misbehave themselves, and it became particularly necessary when the present Government introduced at the beginning of this year a whole series of Measures which, if they had any political sense at all, they must have known would rouse deep hostility in the House and in the country.
We are discussing this Motion mainly because the Government have got themselves into great difficulties with their timetable. They were apparently unaware of what would be the response in this House and outside it to the introduction of a series of Measures about the National Health Service. They must have thought that those Measures would go through fairly swiftly and that they could get the rest of their fairly lengthy Measures through as well.
The Government had to be shown that they were miscalculating the mood of both House and country in making that assumption. That was a perfectly legitimate thing for the House to do, and it was absolutely necessary, but part of the result of the Government's introduction of that series of highly-objectionable Measures about the National Health Service is that they have disrupted their timetable. They have therefore had to say, "Because we wrecked our previous plan for getting our business through by introducing such unpopular Measures as those associated with the National Health Service, discussion of other Measures is to be affected as a result of our miscalculation."
Coming to this Motion today, the Government had certain remedies open to them. Leaving aside the Easter holiday itself, they could have three or four days extra next week in order to discuss either the matters which have been referred to by my right hon. and hon. Friends or other matters not yet mentioned. For my part, I think that we could have had many exchanges with the Leader of the House in his office as Home Secretary on the subject of the Timothy Evans case. The Home Secretary has said either that there is no time to discuss it or that Parliament can find the time to discuss it. We could find the time next week. That is another

example of how the time could profitably be used.
There is also the Report of the Committee of Privileges. I do not say that it is always the practice to discuss at once a report of the Committee of Privileges. I dare say that there are many examples of reports being discussed in the House after some delay. However, I think it is customary, at any rate, or it frequently happens, that a report of the Committee of Privileges, particularly when it deals with a vital constitutional principle, is discussed at a fairly early date. According to the newspapers, there is to be a debate in the Palace of Westminster about the Report of the Committee of Privileges, but it will not take place in the House of Commons. It will be in the 1922 Committee. Perhaps one of the reasons why we have not had time and why we should have it next week to discuss the Report of the Committee of Privileges on Mr. Wedgwood Benn's case is that the Government have to sort things out on their own side first.
There is even the most monstrous suggestion going about that the Government intend to put the Whips on the Report. I hope there is no truth in that. In any case, it would be much better for the House of Commons, and fairer, I should think, to the gentleman who was my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East—and perhaps still is—that the matter should be debated in the House at once. A recommendation of the Committee of Privileges is not a decision of the House of Commons, and I should have thought that, in fairness to Mr. Benn, he should have the opportunity of having the subject discussed in the House of Commons as early as possible so that the principle could be established and we could have a decision reached here with the Whips off. It does not matter to me, as it happens, but I am sure that the Whips will not be on on this side of the House when we consider the Report of the Committee of Privileges. I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House, quite apart from his attitude to any Opposition Motion, will give us an undertaking that, when we do debate the Report of the Committee of Privileges, it will be a proper debate without the Whips on on the benches opposite.
However, much the most serious reason for this debate today is the


situation in Laos. All of us are extremely pleased that, during the last twenty-four hours or so, there has been a great improvement, or what appears to be a great improvement, in the situation. There seems to be a real possibility of a conference being called, although, if one looks at the details of the discussions between the great Powers, it is still not apparent that the proposal for a cease-fire has been accepted yet on all sides.
There could be a very swift worsening of the situation in a matter of hours. Bearing in mind what has happened in Laos on previous occasions, I think we should take warning about what could happen next week. On at least two occasions in the past, there have been scare headlines and statements in the newspapers about large-scale invasions of Laos by Communist troops from outside. For periods lasting two or three days, there has been the appearance of a major crisis blowing up in Laos and then, at the end, we have discovered that most of the reports were completely false, that in fact the invasions alleged to be taking place were not taking place, and that a great deal of the news which set the whole world on its ears had been cooked up by certain people in Laos who had an interest in doing so, people who wanted, by creating a scare, either to increase the amount of military aid they were receiving from the United States, or for other reasons.
Indeed, in regard to the latest reports which we have had about what is happening in Laos, the article which appeared in the Daily Mail of today or yesterday, reporting on the spot what is happening out there, gave an account very different from the general story which is being told not from first-hand reports but from what is being dished out in Washington, Moscow or elsewhere.
The situation is extremely confused, and it is one in which it is only right that, before any action which might involve the use of this country's troops is taken, the House of Commons should have the fullest opportunity to discuss it. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has already referred to the report in The Times today from its Bangkok correspondent which states that a decision in principle has already been made by the British Govern-

ment about committing armed forces in the area. I hope that the Home Secretary will reply to my hon. Friend and give a categorical assurance that there has been no such decision by the Government. If there had been such a decision by the Government, it should have been reported to the House. It would be quite improper for any commitment in the terms suggested by The Times correspondent not to be reported to the House of Commons, particularly when both last Friday and again yesterday questions were put to the Government about the matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate that if that commitment has already been made the assurances from the Leader of the House for which I ask would no longer be of any value and the House ought not to adjourn at all.

Mr. Foot: I hope that the solution of the problem will be that the Home Secretary will tell us that The Times correspondent has been misinformed. That is the first possibility, the only possibility affording a proper position for the Government to be in.
If, however, there can be any colour of suspicion that what The Times reported is correct, then the House of Commons confronts a very serious situation. Indeed, if that report is right, we ought to have a full debate on the matter now. We really must ask the Leader of the House to give a very clear statement on the subject. These are not trivial or secondary matters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) pointed out, at the time of the Korean crisis, whatever one may have thought about the merits or demerits of becoming involved in Korea at all, the decision was taken in a few hours, and even in that case, as I recell it, there was a full debate in the House of Commons before the decision was taken on whether Britain herself would be committed.
Mr. Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, said yesterday that war or peace in Laos depends upon what happens in the next few days. No doubt he made that statement before we had the indication yesterday of the Soviet response to the proposals which have been put forward by the British and American


Governments. Since the Soviet statement the situation has somewhat eased. I must say that I think that the British and American Governments are very fortunate that the Soviet Union is prepared to make that response, having regard to everything that has happened in Laos during the past two years. It cannot be forgotten that the situation in Laos arises very largely because the American Government took action to overthrow, or assisted in overthrowing, the legitimate Government in that country and poured weapons in on a huge scale. About £100 million worth were sent in in a very short space of time. I congratulate the British Government on one aspect of the matter. As I understand the situation, the British Government for some time have been pressing the American Government to abandon their hopeless policy in regard to Laos and, in recent weeks, since the change of Administration in the United States, they have had a little more success. But now we can by no means be certain that we have escaped altogether from the Laos crisis. Although there is a move on both sides to try to reach accommodation, there is no firm settlement about this.
Therefore, I conclude by again repeating our demands to the right hon. Gentleman. We ask for a complete denial of this statement made by The Times that the British Government have already made some commitment about our British armed forces being employed in this area. We ask for the most categorical statement from the right hon. Gentleman on that. Assuming that his answer is that The Times report is completely mistaken, we ask, further, for the absolute assurance that there will be no decision to this effect to use British armed forces in this area without the House of Commons being summoned and being able to debate the proposition whether we should become involved.
There are many of us who think that it would be disastrous for this country to become involved in such a situation. We think, particularly in view of history over the past few years, that it would be absolutely improper for the Government, particularly when the matter has been brought so strongly to our attention as it has been in a series of speeches

today, to allow the House of Commons to depart without being given that clear assurance.
There is another reason why we should be concerned about it. I must say that the speech of the Foreign Secretary yesterday in Bangkok was quite out of keeping with the statements which apparently were being made in Washington or in this House. I think that he was extremely ill-advised that at a time of such delicate negotiations, when, as I say, if we look back over the past years it is certainly not the Western Powers which have all the right on their side—I put it no higher than that—our Foreign Secretary should go to the S.E.A.T.O. Conference and make a very bellicose speech. Dean Rusk spoke in much more temperate and sensible terms than did the British Foreign Secretary.
We have to take into account previous speeches made by the British Foreign Secretary since his appointment. We have had a number of speeches by him in which he has sought to show how strong he is and to shake his fist in the the face of the Soviet Government and the Chinese and Communist Powers. It is not very effective, particularly when it is done by the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. S. Silverman: It frightens me.

Mr. Foot: It frightens us, but it does not frighten them; therefore it certainly appears that the mood in Washington was a bit different from the mood at the S.E.A.T.O. Conference. Many of us—there are only a few of us here—had believed that the whole way in which the S.E.A.T.O. organisation were organised was wrong from the start.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. He is going a little further than the procedure Motion. We can discuss the seriousness of the situation in Laos, but we cannot go into it in detail.

Mr. Foot: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was only underlining the fact that partly because some of us do not think that this organisation was a good one in the first place, and partly because we are so concerned about the way in which the Foreign Secretary is behaving at this time, and partly because we do not think that the policy which he has been stating at Bangkok altogether


fits in with the policy we would hope the British Government would pursue at this time—it is partly for all these reasons that before we allow the House of Commons to Adjourn we should have the clearest possible series of assurances from the Government.

5.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): It may help the House, which has had a long debate, to come to a decision on this matter if I say a few words. First, I should like to deal with the speech of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who used the expression that we were adjourning for a long period.
If we look up the records, going back to 1945 and 1946 and every since, it will be found that the number of clear days of Recess is exactly the same in each year, with the one exception of 1951, when the days were ten. Otherwise, the House has always adjourned for eleven days. We are not doing anything out of the ordinary. We are following a precedent respectably set by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and we are proposing to ask the House to go into Recess as the result of the passing of this Motion. That is the normal thing to do. As several of my predecessors who have come from the opposite side of the House will remember, they themselves said that it was not a bad thing occasionally for the House to have a Recess.

Mr. J. T. Price: It is not eleven Parliamentary days.

Mr. Butler: It is eleven calendar days.
The second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was in relation to the Guillotine. He seemed to infer, though he did not state it categorically, that it was peculiar to ask the House to pass a Motion like this when the Guillotine has been used. I should simply like to remind the House that in 1947, at the time of rising for Easter—this is one of the decisions that I have mentioned here in the past—the Labour Government were involved in guillotining the Transport Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill. There is nothing unusual in the length of the Recess, or in the fact that there has been the Guillotine.

Mr. G. Brown: Was the Motion for the Adjournment in that year opposed by the then Opposition?

Mr. Butler: I do not remember. I only know that the Guillotine point, which was the one that I was dealing with, was the one raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to make one or two other points. He referred to the Business on the Order Paper for today. He will realise that the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill is a Measure which is wanted by the industry. I think that was realised by him and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who took part in our debate. Therefore, I do not think there is anything very remarkable in our asking that we should obtain that business and as much of the rest of the business as we can reasonably obtain.
I should like to make clear that all that we can do is to make the best possible progress, and I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of his own words when he said that we are anxious to see that these Bills should be properly put on the Statute Book.

Mr. Brown: And properly discussed.

Mr. Butler: That is exactly the view of Her Majesty's Government.
I should say in answer to the many observations of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), who has an unrivalled knowledge, so far as I can see, of the Parliamentary programme, that we are anxious to see that these Bills are properly put on the Statute Book, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman. If we then approach all the different Bills which he has mentioned and the Bills which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Westhoughton and other hon. Members in that spirit, I think we shall be able to fulfil our programme. I should like to make absolutely clear that, in my opinion, having been present during the debates that the Guillotine has not operated against the general advantage of the House. There has been ample opportunity to discuss the Contributions Bill, and there will be ample opportunity tomorrow to discuss the Charges Bill. In fact, those of us who watched the first Schedule of the Contributions Bill


going through the House found that it went through with as much discussion as anybody ever hoped that it would have whether there had been the Guillotine or not.
I claim that although it is not a good thing perpetually to rely on the Guillotine—and no Leader of the House has ever said that it is; and it would be wrong to claim that it is—in fact these Measures have been properly and decently discussed at a decent time of night and hon. Members have been able to put their points of view. I do not think, therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman put forward many Measures which he said should be discussed and many Measures which he would like to see discussed, we have any reason not to take our usual Easter Recess as a House and profit by it.
I think that the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that we should come back and have a sort of general debating society for a few days next week should be undertaken as an individual private enterprise. He should take the hall, find his own chairman and his own leader, and everything should be satisfactory to him. I suggest that with a little private enterprise he should give the good old House of Commons and its officers and staff a bit of a rest and organise a debating society during the holidays. If he asks me along, I shall be only too glad to attend.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any discussion with the Home Secretary about my proposal last year to the Home Secretary to introduce early in the Session a social survey indicating the Government's general attitude to the Welfare State and social services? Is he not aware that, if such a method had been adopted, the debates in bits and pieces which we have had on different aspects of the social services could have been more tidily conducted and completed in a shorter period?

Mr. Butler: I have considered what the hon. Gentleman said in the course of a previous debate on an occasion like this, but what he suggests is a difficult thing to do. Perhaps, if we could continue our consultations together, we may be able to make some progress and

thereby facilitate the future of the Welfare State.
In answer to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), I should like to say that, with the permission of Mr. Speaker, he made a great deal of the future of the Welfare State. If, however, he cannot go away for Easter because he is frightened about whether the Tories will destroy the Welfare State, I can tell him categorically one thing. It is not Government policy to impose charges on education, whoever may say that it is. I say that not only as a former Minister of Education but as a responsible Member of the Government. Nor is it the Government's proposal to dismantle the Welfare State during the Easter Recess. I think the hon. Member will find when he comes back after Easter that further commitments have been undertaken and that the social services have been developed over Easter, as they should. I hope that his great anxiety on this score will be removed, at any rate by the assurances that I am giving.
One or two other serious matters have been raised in the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who echoed what the right hon. Member for Belper said about shipping and shipbuilding. This remains a constant anxiety of the Government and of myself, since, as Home Secretary, I have a particular responsibility to Northern Ireland. I am aware of this matter. It links up with the matter of the Cunarder in one respect, which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. None of these issues will suffer by the fact that we have an Easter Recess. In fact, it may well be that further consideration will be able to be given to them.
I should like to assure the hon. Member for Jarrow that I do not represent a constituency which has been through so much suffering as his constituency. Having been there during my days when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and in the old days when Jarrow was really suffering, I can say that there is no intention simply of having an Easter Recess and forgetting the interests and needs of the shipping and shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will not give us a debate after Easter?

Mr. Butler: In view of the marshalled array of legislation and the points made by the right hon. Member for Belper and by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, it would be unwise of me to promise any further openings. I say in reply to the right hon. Member for Belper and to the hon. Member for Westhoughton that the fact that it is so difficult on a Thursday to give more Parliamentary time has been largely due to the classical reason, namely, that this is the period of Supply. Supply takes up the greater part of our time at this period of the year. I am afraid that I cannot alter that because it is the classical period of the British Parliamentary year. It is not a time when it is possible to have many extra debates.
In general, I say as Leader of the House that the more chances we have for general debate—whether it be on the Albemarle Report, on the Wolfenden Report on Sport, on decimal coinage, on the training and employment of young people in Scotland, on people living on small fixed incomes, on the charges under the National Health Service Bill or on leasehold reform and other matters—the happier I would be. But I cannot give undertakings which I am unable to carry out.
The major issue on the subject of the Easter Recess was raised by the right hon. Member for Belper. He said that I should give a pledge that if the situation in Laos deteriorated the House would be recalled. I remind the House that, under Standing Order No. 112, "Earlier Meeting of the House", it is possible to recall the House. I wish to make it clear that I am not going to make a statement on Laos today as if I were Foreign Secretary or informing the House about the situation. My duty in replying to this debate is to give an assurance, and that assurance is to this effect.
In answering a Question on Monday, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said:
Under the terms of Article IV in the Manilla Treaty we have an obligation to consult with our partners in the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation if any party or designated State is threatened in any way other than by armed attack. I cannot foretell what action might result from such consultation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1961; Vol. 637, c. 937.]

The undertaking which I ought to give to the House before we adjourn for Easter is that if any such action involved, in the words of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), British soldiers or any risk taken of British blood being spilt, or, in the words of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr M. Foot), that there was any worsening which resulted in action of a military character—that is, any action arising out of the Treaty which has that effect—or if there were any deterioration, which was the word used by the right hon. Member for Belper, in the situation, I think that it would be right for the Government to recall the House. I think that I must give that assurance. I cannot go into further detail.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sure that we are all grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said and appreciates what he has done in saying it. However, will he reply specifically to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot)? Will he make it perfectly clear, in view of what The Times correspondent said, that we are not committed already and perhaps at the same time persuade the Foreign Secretary not to make swashbuckling mock heroic speeches in the meantime?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept that description of the speeches of my noble Friend, but I can say that no decision has been taken by the Government of the character evidently described. Neither have I read that report. I will make it my duty to discuss the report with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he returns and consult my colleagues in the Government about it.
I would simply like to say this on the subject of Laos, about which I am not making a statement but simply referring to it on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the right hon. Member for Belper said, it is our desire to see a peaceful solution of this matter. There are certain indications which are certainly better and I do not think that the diagnosis made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is in any essential wrong. The situation is more hopeful than it has been. The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying that this is a confused situation. I cannot tell how things will


develop, but I think that the House ought to leave the situation, in letting us adjourn for the Easter Recess, in the terms that I mentioned with the hope that the situation will continue to improve.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I realise that I can speak again only by leave. In view of what the Home Secretary has said, perhaps the House will give me leave to speak again.
Two things of considerable importance have emerged from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and they make absolute nonsense of the attack made on us by the hon. Members for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) and Southend, East (Mr. McAdden). The first thing of considerable importance which the right hon. Gentleman said was his assurance on the situation in Laos. I do not think that any of us would wish to be less than generous to him or not to match the generosity of his own announcement which was very full and which was welcomed by the House.
The second thing was the carefully tossed-in assurance which everyone has up to now avoided giving, namely, that the Government do not propose to introduce charges for education under any circumstances. We have never had this assurance from the Minister of Education. There was no comment when the Bow Group produced this in a recent pamphlet. It was allowed to receive wide publicity. It would have been worth having the debate if only to get that on the record by the Leader of the House so that his colleagues are tied.
Apart from those two things, which I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, for the rest it did not seem that he was meeting the case. Indeed, some of his answers at the beginning made it even worse. On the question of the various important issues which we ought to find time to discuss, the right hon. Gentleman was, I thought, erecting an unbreachable wall. He said that for the reasons which, he thought, I had given—incidentally, his various references to what I had said were ingenious and selective in the pieces which he chose to remember and the qualifications he chose to forget—there

were no further openings for these important debates because of the pile-up of legislation. If we are being sent away for the Recess with an assurance not only that we cannot have a debate before we go but that we cannot have one soon after we come back on any of these serious subjects, that makes an overwhelming case for the proposal that we on our side are putting.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted from me that Acts of legislation should be properly put upon the Statute Book. By "properly put upon the Statute Book" we mean properly discussed and properly reached at a proper time of the day.

ROYAL ASSENT

6.0 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1961.
2. National Health Service Contributions Act, 1961.
3. Nurses (Amendment) Act, 1961.
4. Post Office Act, 1961.
5. Sierra Leone Independence Act, 1961.
6. Betting Levy Act, 1961.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Question again proposed.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I was saying, at the point of interruption, that, despite the ingenious way in which the Leader of the House had picked words out of what I had said in order to support his case, he had strengthened our case against the Motion rather than the other way round.
The right hon. Gentleman certainly frightened me considerably with his reference to the absolute unlikelihood of our being able to have time at all to discuss issues of considerable importance which hon. Members on both sides of the House have been wanting to discuss.


We have our duty to think what we ought to do in the light of the way in which the debate has gone and the statement of the Leader of the House. I am bound to say that I see nothing whatever in that statement which could possibly make me feel now that I ought to advise my hon. and right hon. Friends not to oppose the Government's Motion.
It seems to me that we must develop our protest against the way in which events in the House have been handled during the weeks that will now come to an end if the Motion is passed. We must certainly mark our lack of satisfaction with our inability to discuss serious issues, an inability which the Leader of the House seems to forecast will be with us in the days ahead. We must certainly declare our dissatisfaction with the state of business on the Order Paper and the way in which efforts will be made to get serious and important Bills through the House late at night under cover of inadequate attendance and discussion. We must protest against all these things. I therefore propose to divide the House against the Motion and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support me in the Lobby.

6.16 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I must apologise, first, for not being able to be present during the discussion of the Motion, but I have had to attend the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. In particular, I want to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for not being able to hear what he said.
After noting that, quite rightly, my right hon. Friend claims the full support of this side of the House in his regard for the liberty of the subject, I should like to know, before supporting the Motion, whether he has seen the Motion on the Order Paper in my name concerning the removal of a councillor from the Bedlingtonshire Council Chamber.

[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to hold an inquiry into the removal of Councillor William Hall of the Bedlingtonshire Urban District Council by an officer of the Northumberland

Police Force on the instruction of the Chairman of the Council, and is of opinion that, in view of this incident, Parliament should be informed as to what protection elected representatives of local authorities have and under what circumstances their removal from a council chamber can be carried out.]

I should also like to know whether my right hon. Friend can assure me that during the Recess an inquiry will be held into the circumstances which permitted an independent member of the Bedlingtonshire Urban District Council to be removed in the course of his duties and thereby prevented from registering his opposition to whatever was the subject under discussion during the meeting of the local authority.

I apologise to the House for not knowing the Standing Orders relating to local authority affairs and, therefore, I have included in my Motion a request to my right hon. Friend that he should inform the House what protection freely and democratically elected representatives on local councils have against being bodily removed and prevented from the pursuance of their duties.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the Question is, "That this House, at its rising on Thursday, do adjourn till Tuesday, 11th April", and I have to ask the hon. Lady to relate her observations to that.

Dame Irene Ward: I oppose the Motion unless I receive an assurance that ordinary members of the public will not be deterred, during our Recess, from doing the duty for which they have been democratically elected.
I listened to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House talking about Laos, which is tremendously important. It appears to me that it is equally important to know whether ordinary people are to be prohibited from doing their duty when it is quite impossible, when the House is in recess, for us to make any protest. My Motion is quite clear and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend, in pursuance of his support of the liberty of the subject, could say whether we are to be saved from interference in local authorities or whether the House must protect the rights of freely elected representatives on local councils.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I must warn the Leader of the House that if hon. Members follow the example of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) he is liable to be faced with a parade of 88 hon. Members whose names head the present number of early day

Motions on the Order Paper which have no chance of being debated.

Dame Irene Ward: May I have an answer please?

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 158.

Division No. 121.]
AYES
[6.19 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maddan, Martin


Aitken, W. T.
Gammans, Lady
Maitland, Sir John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Allason, James
Godber, J. B.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Arbuthnot, John
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Atkins, Humphrey
Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Barter, John
Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton


Batsford, Brian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Grimston, Sir Robert
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bell, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, William


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morrison, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Berkeley, Humphry
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nabarro, Gerald


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesf'd)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nugent, Sir Richard


Bingham, R. M.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Bishop, F. P.
Hay, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Box, Donald
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Partridge, E.


Braine, Bernard
Hendry, Forbes
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Brewis, John
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Peel, John


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Percival, Ian


Brooman-White, R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bryan, Paul
Hobson, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bullard, Denys
Hocking, Philip N.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Holland Philip
Pitt, Miss Edith


Burden, F. A.
Hollingworth, John
Pott, Percivall


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hopkins, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, R. P.
Price, David (Easteigh)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Prior, J. M. L.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cary, Sir Robert
Hughes-Young, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Channon, H. P. G.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pym, Francis


Chataway, Chistopher
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, James


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Peter


Clark, William (Nottingham S.)
Jackson, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cole, Norman
James, David
Rees, Hugh


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jennings, J. C.
Renton, David


Cordle, John
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robertson Sir David


Coulson, J. M.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Roots, William


Critchley, Julian
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ropner Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Scott-Hopkins James


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, Anthony
Seymour, Leslie


Curran, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lambton, Viscount
Shepherd, William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


de Ferranti, Basil
Langford-Holt, J.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Doughty, Charles
Leavey, J. A.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Drayson, G. B.
Leburn, Gilmour
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


du Cann, Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speir, Rupert


Duncan, Sir James
Lilley, F. J. P.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Duthie, Sir William
Lindsay, Martin
Stevens, Geoffrey


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Elliott. R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Talbot, John E.


Farey-Jones, F, W.
McAdden, Stephen
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Teeling, William


Finlay, Graeme
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Temple, John M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macpherson, Nail (Dumfries)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Freeth, Denzil

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)




Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Walder, David
Woodhouse, C. M.


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Walker, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Ward, Dame Irene
Woollam, John


Turner, Colin
Webster, David
Worsley, Marcus


Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)



Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Noble




NOES


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Awbery, Stan
Hill, J. (Midlothlan)
Peart, Frederick


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hilton, A. V.
Pentland, Norman


Benson, Sir George
Holman, Percy
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Blyton, William
Howell, Charles A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boardman, H.
Howell, Denis
Probert, Arthur


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hoy, James H.
Randall, Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chetwynd, George
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Short, Edward


Cliffe, Michael
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silverman Julius (Aston)


Collick, Percy
Jeger, George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cronin John
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Snow, Julian


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, Dr. Horace
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, George
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Diamond, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Swingler, Stephen


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Sylvester, George


Driberg, Tom
Logan, David
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Loughlin, Charles
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McCann, John
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
MacColl, James
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, James
Thornton, Ernest


Finch, Harold
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Tomney, Frank


Fitch, Alan
McLeavy, Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wade, Donald


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Manuel, A. C.
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles
Warbey, William


Forman, J. C.
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, J. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Milne, Edward J.
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, Walter
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Grey, Charles
Morris, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Moyle, Arthur
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Grimond, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hannan, William
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton


Healey, Denis
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday, do adjourn till Tuesday, 11th April.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the salaries and other emoluments of persons bolding administrative

offices of State; to amend the Political Offices Pension Act, 1869; and to authorise payments out of the National Land Fund for those purposes and purposes connected therewith.
The object of my proposed Bill is to increase the emoluments of Ministers of the Crown and to bring back to life, by making a few small amendments to it, an Act, relating to Ministerial pensions, which has fallen into disuse.
The holding of high political office in England has not always been a financial


disaster. Nor is it right to think, as many do, that there is an old tradition in this country that great service to the State should be entirely divorced from any thought of material gain. On the contrary, a royal recognition of service rendered to the State was often lavish, if not wholly at royal expense. Many of the great personages, lay and ecclesiastical, to whom England owes so large a debt sought and obtained the endowment of their families in the service of the Crown.
Nothing that I propose today, even if accepted, would carry us any distance back towards those conditions. I mention them only to emphasise that the contrast between devoted public service and adequate remuneration which is so often drawn is not only unfair and not only contrary to the true public interest, but has not even the sanction of history behind it.
Indeed, the long decline in Ministerial reward has probably caused the loss to the direct service of the State of many outstanding men. For a time it even hung in the balance whether William Pitt, oppressed by his financial problems, would continue as Prime Minister of England, or return to his practice at the Bar on the Western circuit. In the end, Parliament discharged his debts.
It is to be remembered, in this connection, that the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury was fixed in 1660, or earlier, and not changed until 1937, when it had been the same for nearly 300 years. The salaries of other senior Ministers were fixed more recently, in 1831. They have never been changed since and they stand at £5,000 a year.
In 1831, £5,000 was a vastly different sum from what it is now. Over 130 years, not only have the burdens of office increased beyond all recognition, but the depreciation of money has raised the general level of remuneration in the community and eroded the vale of Ministerial emoluments until the man at the head of a great Department of State is now progressively, year by year, financially moving down through the grades of his own Department.
The Bill was in preparation before Dr. Beeching erupted upon us and his case is as much of an embarrassment to me as a help. But it shows what a disproportion has grown between rewards

inside and outside the public service. Inside the public service, I note that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury is paid £7,500 a year, half as much again as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, nine people in the Treasury are paid more than the Chancellor and it is only when we get to the level of Third Secretary, of whom there are six, including a woman establishment officer, that we find in the Treasury someone working for the same salary, £5,000 a year, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In every other Department of State there are Departmental servants who are paid more than the Minister responsible to Parliament. I do not grudge those people their level of remuneration nor the security and pension which accompany it, but the comparative position reached should not be tolerated any more.
The Bill would raise the salaries of senior Ministers from £5,000 to £10,000 a year. For similar comparable reasons, I suggest that the salary of the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury should go up from £10,000 a year to £20,000 a year, and that the pension attached to the office of Prime Minister should be increased from £2,000 to £4,000.
The salaries of junior Ministers were adjusted in 1937 and again in 1957 from the absurd level at which they formerly stood. They continue to be far too low and to impose on those who accept the offices a degree of sacrifice on the part of the Minister, and sometimes on the part of his family, which approaches real hardship and which no one serving in such an office should be called upon to bear. The Bill proposes to raise the salaries of Parliamentary Secretaries from £2,500 a year to £3,500 a year.
Ministers of State, who have been created piecemeal to avoid the niggardliness of the remuneration of junior Ministers, are now paid £3,750, which is the same as Treasury Secretaries. For those the Bill provides for a salary of £6,000 a year. Provision is also made for increase in the salaries of the junior Lords of the Treasury, but, for technical reasons, not those of the Officers of the Household.
There is no longer any statutory reason why Ministers should not receive


their full Parliamentary salary. That they receive only £750 is due to the form of the House of Commons Resolution. There is a Clause in the Bill which would outflank any future attempt at this kind of ministerial masochism. Accordingly, in addition to the salaries which I have mentioned, each Minister would receive his full Parliamentary salary.
That would be proportionately a much greater benefit than it appears, because now if a Minister's Parliamentary expenses exceed £750 a year he has to pay the rest of them out of his net taxed income, and one knows that that is a great source of hardship to the holders of ministerial office. The anomalous rule that a Minister cannot claim any expense for living in London, away from his home in the country, is also to be abrogated.
The Political Offices Pension Act, 1869, provided a limited number of pensions of for ex-Ministers. I propose, in Clause 7 of the Bill, to increase the maximum number from four to seven and to repeal the provision which has required an applicant to make a declaration of financial hardship. No pension is being, or for a long time has been, paid out of that fund. It depends on a recommendation to the Queen, and I am sorry to say that for more than thirty years, so far as I can find out, no Government have thought fit to recommend the Sovereign to grant any such pension. My main object in making this small amendment is to try to bring the Act back to life.
It only remains for me to say that I seek to put forward the Bill on my own initiative, and have consulted about it only back bench Members on both sides. It may be thought a little presumptuous for a private Member to make these large proposals, and I confess that I have at time felt a little Olympian in deciding what each Minister should be paid. I have tried to reach my conclusions without any reference to the merits of the existing incumbents of the various offices. Also, I have no idea what Ministers think of my proposals, although I have seemed to detect, at times, an approval of the general principle underlying the Bill, which encourages me for the future.
The past is a sad story. Two Select Committees sat between the wars to consider this situation. They were somewhat frustrated by conflicting desires to raise salaries which they described as anomalous and inadequate while yet imposing no additional burden upon the public revenue. Not having at their disposal, as I have, the National Land Fund as a means of reconciling those conflicting purposes, they found no solution. I have fallen back upon the National Land Fund, and hon. Members will be glad to know that there is in that Fund sufficient to meet these charges for several years to come.
Nevertheless, those two Committees made many recommendations but no action was ever taken on any of them. The reason for that is simple, and it is the reason why I am now asking the leave of the House to introduce the Bill. It was given in evidence to the second Select Committee by Mr. David Lloyd George, who said that it was a very awkward thing for any Minister to come to the House of Commons and propose a vote to increase ministerial salaries. Mr. Stanley Baldwin, as he then was, also giving evidence before the same Committee, said:
There has been a certain diffidence about it. I think each Government was a little nervous about it … the feeling always arose … would it look well if we were to vote increases of our salary?
The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Warren Fisher, when asked by the Select Committee why none of these recommendations had ever been implemented, said:
I think there was a certain diffidence on the part of the various Administrations in raising the subject: I think there was nothing more to it than that.
I hope that those of us on both sides of the House who are not subject to these exquisite and paralysing inhibitions will at long last thrust this bounty upon a reluctant Administration and upon its successors in office. It is for that reason that I now ask that leave be given to bring in the Bill.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has been very persuasive, but he has not persuaded me that this is an essential piece of legislation to which the House should give its


assent. He has painted a picture of hard-up Ministers of the Crown who receive low salaries compared with others in industry. I suggest that there is no compulsion for hon. Members to stay in office as Ministers of the Crown if they prefer to go to the City or take up other responsible duties.
The House recently lost the services of a former Colonial Secretary, who is now Lord Boyd. He was receiving a salary of £5,000 a year as Colonial Secretary. He thought that that was too little, so he became a director of another empire—the empire of Guinness. He chose deliberately to leave the service of the State and of his country, where he was responsible for the administration of our Colonial Territories, to become a director, at a much higher salary, of a well-known national and international institution called Guinness. If Ministers of the Crown feel hard up it is competent for them to find other work.
We also had the former Colonial Secretary who is now Lord Chandos. He served the House and the country with great distinction for many years at an annual salary of £5,000. Then, feeling the pinch of poverty, he decided to go into the City and resume his chairmanship of Associated Electrical Industries. If Ministers of the Crown believe that they are performing greater services to breweries or large monopolies they can do the necessary thing—leave the service of the State and take up service in these other national institutions.
It is proposed to increase the Prime Minister's salary to £20,000 a year. I am opposed to that. I do not believe that the salaries of the Ministers to whom the hon. Member referred are their sole incomes. I was recently interested to learn about the payment of salaries to responsible Ministers of the United States Government. There, when somebody like Mr. Kennedy or Mr. McNamara takes high office, he goes before a Committee of the Senate and the American Legislature and is asked to give up every connection with every profit-making concern and with every monopoly, and to serve the State purely for the salary he receives from it. I would ask whether that is done in this country. When a Minister receives a salary from the Crown, just as he gives up his directorships he ought to give up any outside salaries he receives. He should retain

only the salary provided by the State. There is no provision for that in the proposed Bill.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member should know that it is not necessary. It is in invariable practice and the rule.

Mr. Hughes: It is the invariable practice for hon. Members to give up directorships, but not to give up their shares in various concerns. A Minister of the Crown who was receiving only £5,000 or £10,000 from the State might have shares in Guinness, English Electric, or I.C.I. He might be receiving quite a substantial income. I am not persuaded that the Bill is necessary to prevent Ministers suffering from poverty.

Mr. John Harvey: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not have interruptions during the Ten Minutes Rule Motions.

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Member had announced that his Bill would provide for a means test I would be tempted to examine the proposition, but I do not think that he has made out his case. It comes badly from hon. Members opposite, when some people cannot afford to pay for their prescriptions, or their false teeth, to start at the very top, with the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and all the others. That is starting at the wrong end of the scale. The hon. Member has not convinced me that I should vote for the Bill.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. During the last Parliament, in the days of your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) tried to bring in a Bill the funding of which would come from the National Land Fund. I asked whether it was in order, and ultimately, after some argument, your predecessor asked the hon. Member to withdraw his Bill without prejudice. We never had the Bill presented because there was no certainty that it was in order, in the matter of its funding. Since this proposed Bill is based on precisely the principle which was contested in the last Parliament, I should be obliged if you would give the House your opinion on the matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Hall: Further to that point of order. I introduced a


Bill which was withdrawn at the request of Mr. Speaker, but it was introduced again the following week and was ruled by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, to be in order.

Mr. Speaker: It is in order. The constitution of the National Land Fund is such as not to raise the point of difficulty

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I should like to ask your advice, and possibly your assistance, about a habit which seems to have grown up recently of congregating in the entrances to the Division Lobbies at the moment when a Division is being taken.
which the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) has in mind.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 21.

Division No. 122.]
AYES
[6.50 p.m.


Allason, James
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Barter, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Batsford, Brian
Hendry, Forbes
Prior, J. M. L.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hobson, John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hollingworth, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Berkeley, Humphry
Hopkins, Alan
Rawlinson, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rees, Hugh


Bingham, R. M.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Blackburn, F.
Iremonger, T. L.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Box, Donald
James, David
Roots, William


Brewis, John
Jennings, J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Burden, F. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Seymour, Leslie


Buck, Antony
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Shaw, M.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shepherd, William


Chataway, Christopher
Kimball, Marcus
Spier, Rupert


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kitson, Timothy
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Cole, Norman
Langford-Holt, J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cooper, A. E.
Leavey, J. A.
Stodart, J. A.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Talbot, John E.


Cordle, John
Lilley, F. J. P.
Teeling, William


Critchley, Julian
Lindsay, Martin
Temple, John M.


Curran, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton, Ernest


Deedes, W. F.
McAdden, Stephen
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


de Ferranti, Basil
McCann, John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


du Cann, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Turner, Colin


Duncan, Sir James
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maitland, Sir John
Watts, James


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Marten, Neil
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fitch, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Worsley, Marcus


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Nabarro, Gerald
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Goodhew, Victor
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey



Grimston, Sir Robert
Page, John (Harrow, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. R. Bell and


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Mr. Gresham Cooke


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Partridge, E.





NOES


Awbery, Stan
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Warbey, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Manuel, A. C.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fernyhough, E.
Probert, Arthur



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. Hale and


Hocking, Philip N.
Short, Edward
Mr. Emrys Hughes


Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

I am not suggesting for a moment that it is anybody's intention to impede any hon. Member in exercising his parliamentary duty and going into the Division Lobby, but I submit to you that it has always been recognised in the House that if there were any such attempt it would be most reprehensible and completely out of order. It has happened


several times, and just now, when large numbers of hon. Members coming from both sides of the House were outside each of the Division Lobbies in such numbers and so densely packed—I use the word physically, not otherwise—in the mouths of the Division Lobbies that it required a physical effort to get through. I do not know whether anything can be done by direction to the Officers of the House, or in any other way, to make certain that the entrances to the Division Lobby are open and unimpeded at the time when a Division is taken.

Mr. Speaker: I think that usually we manage with mutual good manners. I am bound to say that I have known occasions—I am not saying that this was one—when, owing to the fact that there was some doubt as to whether a Division was really going to be effective, a number of hon. Members, actuated by no more vile motive than simple curiosity, have tended to congregate. I hope that we shall all remember the needs of other hon. Members at these times.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged for that, Mr. Speaker, but would you agree that if hon. Members are really in doubt as to whether a Division is effective or not effective the best way to find out is inside the debating Chamber, and from you, rather than from other sources outside?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should perhaps get on with the matter.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ronald Bell, Lord Balniel, Mr. Crosland, Mr. Gresham Cooke, Sir A. V. Harvey, Mr. Hobson, Sir H. Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Mayhew, Mr. Nabarro, Mr. Russell, and Mr. Strauss.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN

Bill to amend the law relating to the salaries and other emoluments of persons holding administrative offices of State; to amend the Political Offices Pension Act, 1869; and to authorise payments out of the National Land Fund for those purposes and purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th April, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question put, That the Report [22nd March] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Powell.]

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 140.

Division No. 123.]
AYES
[7.2 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Chataway, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Aitken, W. T.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Freeth, Denzil


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Barlow, Sir John
Cole, Norman
Gammans, Lady


Barter, John
Cooper, A. E.
Gibson-Watt, David


Batsford, Brian
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Godber, J. B.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Corfield, F. V.
Goodhew, Victor


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Coulson, J. M.
Gower, Raymond


Bell, Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Berkeley, Humphry
Critchley, John
Green, Alan


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Cunningham, Knox
Grimston, Sir Robert


Bingham, R. M.
Curran, Charles
Gurden, Harold


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Currie, G. B. H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bishop, F. P.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Box, Donald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Deedes, W.F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Boyle, Sir Edward
de Ferranti, Basil
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Braine, Bernard
Doughty, Charles
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Brewis, John
Drayson, G. B.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
du Cann, Edward
Hay, John


Brooman-White, R.
Duncan, Sir James
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bryan, Paul
Duthie, Sir William
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Buck, Antony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Bullard, Denys
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hendry, Forbes


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Burden, F. A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Farr, John
Hobson, John


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Finlay, Graeme
Hocking, Philip N.


Channon, H. P. G.
Fisher, Nigel
Holland, Philip




Hollingworth, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Hopkins, Alan
Morgan, William
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Speir, Rupert


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Nabarro, Gerald
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hughes-Young, Michael
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nugent, Sir Richard
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Talbot, John E.


Iremonger, T. L.
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Jackson, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Teeling, William


James, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jennings, J. C.
Partridge, E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Percival, Ian
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pitt, Miss Edith
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pott, Percivall
Turner, Colin


Kershaw, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vane, W. M. F.


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, J. M. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Lambton, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Leavey, J. A.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walder, David


Leburn, Gilmour
Pym, Francis
Walker, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Lilley, F. J. P.
Ramsden, James
Watts, James


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rawlinson, Peter
Webster, David


Loveys, Walter H.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rees, Hugh
Whitelaw, William


MacArthur, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Renton, David
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Roots, William
Woodhouse, C. M.


Maitland, Sir John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Woodnutt, Mark


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woollam, John


Marten, Neil
Seymour, Leslie
Worsley, Marcus


Mawby, Ray
Sharples, Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, M.



Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Shepherd, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mills, Stratton
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Mr. Noble and Mr. Peel.


Montgomery, Fergus
Skeet, T. H. H.





NOES


Awbery, Stan
Grimond, J.
Marsh, Richard


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mendelson, J. J.


Blyton, William
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward J.


Boardman, H.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mitchison, G. R.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, Walter


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Healey, Denis
Moody, A. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Morris, John


Chetwynd, George
Hilton, A. V.
Moyle, Arthur


Collick, Percy
Holman, Percy
Oliver, G. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Houghton, Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Cronin, John
Howell, Charles A.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Crosland, Anthony
Howell, Denis
Pargiter, G. A.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hoy, James H.
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Frederick


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, A. E.
Pentland, Norman


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Deer, George
Jeger, George
Prentice, R. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Probert, Arthur


Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Proctor, W. T.


Dodds, Norman
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Randall, Harry


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
King, Dr. Horace
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George
Ross, William


Finch, Harold
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fitch, Alan
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Short, Edward


Fletcher, Eric
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Jullus (Aston)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Logan, David
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
McCann, John
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
McInnes, James
Snow, Julian


Ginsburg, David
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Gourley, Harry
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Steele, Thomas


Grey, Charles
Manuel, A. C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mapp, Charles
Swingler, Stephen







Sylvester, George
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Warbey, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Weitzman, David
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Whitlock, William



Thornton, Ernest
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Willey, Frederick
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton


Wade, Donald
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report, put

forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee).

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 143.

Division No. 124.]
AYES
[7.11 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Godber, J. B.
Mills, Stratton


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Morgan, William


Barlow, Sir John
Green, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Barter, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Gerald


Batsford, Brian
Grimston, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, Sir Richard


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Berkeley, Humphry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bingham, R. M.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Partridge, E.


Bishop, F. P.
Hay, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Box, Donald
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel
Peel, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Percival, Ian


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Braine, Bernard
Hendry, Forbes
Pitt, Miss Edith


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pott, Percivall


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Brooman-White, R.
Hobson, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bryan, Paul
Hocking, Philip N.
Prior, J. M. L.


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bullard, Denys
Hollingworth, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hopkins, Alan
Pym, Francis


Burden, F. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Ramsden, James


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rawlinson, Peter


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Channon, H. P. G.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rees, Hugh


Chataway, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, David


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jackson, John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cole, Norman
James, David
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roots, William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jennings, J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Coulson, J. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Seymour, Leslie


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Sharpies, Richard


Critchley, Julian
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Shaw, M.


Croathwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shepherd, William


Cunningham, Knox
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Curran, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Viscount
Speir, Rupert


Deedes, W. F.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


de Ferranti, Basil
Leavey, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Doughty, Charles
Leburn, Gilmour
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Talbot, John E.


du Cann, Edward
Lilley, F. J. P.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Duncan, Sir James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Teeling, William


Duthie, Sir William
Loveys, Walter H.
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Farr, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maitland, Sir John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Turner, Colin


Freeth, Denzil
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mawby, Ray
Vane, W. M. F.


Gammans, Lady
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walder, David




Walker, Peter
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Ward, Dame Irene
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Watts, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)



Webster, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Partick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodhouse, C. M.
Mr. Finlay and


Whitelaw, William
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Gordon Campbell.




NOES


Awbery, Stan
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell, Charles A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blyton, William
Howell, Denis
Probert, Arthur


Boardman, H.
Hoy, James H.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chetwynd, George
Jeger, George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Culien, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, Edward


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Deer, George
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Diamond, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Snow, Julian


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Logan, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Swingler, Stephen


Fernyhough, E
McInnes, James
Sylvester, George


Finch, Harold
McKay, John (wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fitch, Alan
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fletcher, Eric
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Forman, J. C.
Marsh, Richard
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wade, Donald


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward J.
Wainwright, Edwin


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mitchison, G. R.
warbey, William


Ginsburg, David
Monslow, Walter
Weitzman, David


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John
Whitlock, William


Grey, Charles
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Frederick


Grimond, J.
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hannan, William
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hayman, F. H.
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Healey, Denis
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Peart, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hilton, A. V.
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies


Holman, Percy
Plummer, Sir Leslie

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That, subject to the provisions of the Order [6th March]:

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration of the National Health Service Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at half-past

Seven o'clock on the day which, under the Order [6th March], is given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading; and
(b) the Proceedings on Third Reading of the Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion in pursuance of the said Order at half-past Ten o'clock on that day.

Orders of the Day — WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES [MONEY] [No. 2]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for financial assistance for the White fish and herring industries, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable into the Exchequer under section seventeen of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 13th February].

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(INCREASE OF LIMIT ON OUTSTANDING EXCHEQUER ADVANCES TO WHITE FISH AUTHORITY.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: It is a long time since we started our discussions on this Bill. Clause 2 is a particularly important Clause, because under it the Government seek authority to raise the limit from £20 million to £25 million for outstanding loans. It is under this Clause that grants are made for the building of new vessels.
Since the proposals of the Fleck Committee were made known, various opinions have been expressed as to the extent to which the Government should go in providing these loans. There are those as critical as the commentator in the Economist of 21st January, who thought that the Government should allow the matter to be tightened up to such an extent that the weakest would be killed off and no aid at all should be granted. There are others who think that under this proposal a limit should be set; but the Fleck Committee in its Report did not care to lay down any limit on the help to be given to the fishing fleet. Indeed, the Fleck Committee reported against any attempt by the Authority to limit its grant in such

a way as to affect adversely some particular section of the fishing industry.
Since then, and since this Bill has been introduced and the money has been made available in this House, certain other actions have followed. The Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority has announced that loans would not be granted for particular sections of the fishing fleet. It is under this Clause that those loans and grants would be made. In the trawler section there was a fair amount of unanimity that perhaps time should be given to think about it between now and September to consider what its future policy should be and what type of vessel would be required. It was thought that for that purpose the loans should come to a halt.
This was interpreted by other sections of the industry—the seine netters, the creel fishers and the line fishers—to mean that the White Fish Authority would suspend loans and grants for all types of fishing vessels. That brought about great protests from certain sections of the industry in Scotland. It also brought considerable protests from the builders in Scotland, because in many of these northern ports the workers are entirely dependent for employment on this type of boat building. If the Government, through the White Fish Authority, ceased to make these grants, the result would be a diminution in the size of the fishing fleet and unemployment for considerable numbers of workers in Scotland.
Protests were made by the shipbuilders and associations representing the Scottish inshore and herring fishermen. The Secretary of State, to whom I wrote on 16th March, has this morning sent me a considerable reply. I am grateful for the consideration he has given to this problem, along with Sir John Primrose, who is Chairman of the Scottish Committee. The Secretary of State says in that letter:
In the first place paragraph 4 of the memorandum you sent me, in saying that the Committee's decision virtually imposes a complete standstill until September, 1961, of the operation in Scotland of the grants and loans scheme, does not seem to be accurate.
He went on to say:
For such boats there is … no complete suspension and, moreover, applications in respect of other inshore boats, e.g., for creel


fishing or line fishing, will continue to be considered on their merits, and this will also apply to new seine net boats for which applications are made in pursuance of the outer islands training scheme.
So far so good. That seems to alleviate the position a little, but in the penultimate paragraph of his letter the Secretary of State points out that some three years ago shipyards were allowed to engage in what might have been regarded as speculative building, but it was speculative building generally with the approval of the authority concerned. What we are concerned about tonight is that certain of those boats are on the stocks. We should like an assurance from the Secretary of State that for those approval will be given for completion. While the Secretary of State admits that these special arrangements were made some three years ago, this special arrangement was terminated by letter only in November last year. I assert that if boats have been put on the stocks under this speculative building programme, at the very least the Authority is in honour bound to meet its obligations in this respect.
In his letter, the Secretary of State said that this decision of the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority was reached only
after full discussion with representatives of all the Scottish catchers last autumn.
I should like to be assured that that discussion did take place. Even if it did take place, that does not mean that there was agreement. There is a great difference between discussion and agreement. I should like to know from the Secretary of State if when the proposal was made the other sections of the industry outside the trawler section in fact agreed to the proposals. We were then faced with protests from these five associations, representing not only the boat owners but the men working on the boats, the shipbuilders and the men employed in the yards.
7.30 p.m.
The industry is of particular importance to certain smaller ports in our country. I know that the Secretary of State will argue in his reply that the seine netters in recent times have been responsible for a considerable part of the Scottish catch, perhaps a part even exceeding that of the trawlers. Perhaps he is

trying to hold the balance, through the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority, between the seine netter and the trawler.
These are questions of absolutely first-class importance to the industry in Scotland and to the men whose livelihood and employment depend on it. I am certain that the Committee will want to know from the Secretary of State exactly where the Scottish Office stands in this respect.
The reason for the hold-up was that the Authority had run out of cash, as the Secretary of State makes clear in his letter. That was one of the reasons why my hon. Friends and myself had some argument with the Government about the Financial Resolution. This is the sort of difficulty into which the industry has been placed not of its own making, but because of the Government.
Clause 2 proposes to raise the level from £20 million to £25 million. Because so many workpeople are dependent on this for their livelihood I ask these questions of the right hon. Gentleman, to which I hope that he will provide the answers, but at least we shall not oppose the Clause.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I promise that I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I want to add a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). There is no doubt that considerable concern has been caused in a number of places in Scotland, in the boat-building industry and also amongst fishermen about the decision of the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority to limit for the time being the extent to which loans and grants will be given for the purpose of providing new boats and modernising and re-engining older boats. That concern has expressed itself in the memorandum which has been sent to a large number of Members and to which I understand the Secretary of State has given some consideration.
This is a fairly serious situation for many areas in Scotland. The unfortunate part is that they are areas from which employment cannot beneficially be taken—in other words, they are not large conurbations in which if a few men are unemployed they can


be absorbed by other industries. In the majority of cases they are small ports around the East Coast. If they suffer a loss of this character, they experience a certain amount a depopulation and decay. There is a further drift of population to the industrial areas of Scotland.
This is a very serious matter in Scotland and one which causes great concern not only to Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies but also to anyone concerned with the Scottish economy as a whole. Some very specific information should be given to us tonight by the Secretary of State. We should be told whether this decision to limit the extent of loans was taken as a result of the Report of the Fleck Committee. I can hardly think that it was, because discussions took place before the Committee reported.
Arising from that, we should be told what it means in terms of employment—this is what matters—both to the men working on the boats and also to the men engaged in the boat-building industry. We should also be told whether the Secretary of State is considering what will happen as the result of men losing their employment. It is pointed out in the memorandum that already more than 100 employees have lost their jobs and that this number will increase as time passes. It is said that the number will be considerably higher by September. It is also pointed out that there will be fewer openings for apprentices. The prospects school-leavers have of taking apprenticeships in the various industries in Scotland are already bad enough without their difficulties being increased by apprenticeships in this industry being lost. We should be told whether the Secretary of State has any information to give us about this.
In other words, what are likely to be the results of this decision? After that, we should be told if it is intended to rescind this decision in September or if it can be rescinded before then. Having once passed the Money Resolution for the Bill, we should now be able to go forward long before September if it is the policy of the White Fish Authority to go forward and allow the industry to find its own level, which is what the

Fleck Committee recommended. I do not altogether agree with it finding its own level, and I stated my view on Second Reading and also on Clause 1 when we were debating the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I do not agree with that view, but that is the recommendation of the Fleck Committee. Knowing the Government and their views on these matters, I assume that they will have a certain amount of sympathy with this recommendation. If the Government are to accept this view, is the White Fish Authority to be allowed to let the industry find its own level? In other words, is there to be a certain amount of competition in boat building, subsidised by the grants and loans for the various purposes authorised under previous Acts?
We should be told something about this, because it is causing great concern. People are asking many questions. What will be the results? I do not think that we can leave the Clause until the Secretary of State gives us much more information than he has given us up to now, and it should be information of a fairly detailed character, which will at least relieve some of the anxieties of the people who live in small fishing ports.

Sir William Duthie: I am very glad to follow the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I want to refer again to the decision which has been taken by the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority. The impact of this decision upon the inshore fishing industry and the boat-building and ancillary industries in my constituency is disastrous. There is no other way to describe it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned 100 people being out of work. It is several hundred today. People are being paid off weekly, and the decision by the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority is absolutely without rhyme or reason. f one did not know individually the gentlemen who compose the Committee one would think that the decision had been taken out of spleen or rancour.
They have chosen to apply the term "speculative building" to a procedure that has been followed in shipyards ever since the beginning of the grants and loans scheme. Speculative building is commendable foresight on the part of


builders, and had it been earlier forbidden the White Fish Authority would have had a perfectly good reason for acting as it has done. As I say, speculative building has continued ever since the grant and loans scheme came into being.
The boat builders have been taking time by the forelock to ensure as little delay as possible in the finished boat being slid down the ways into the sea, by prefabricating as much as possible, by getting all the materials together and keeping continuity of employment under the eyes of the supervisors of the Scottish Committee of the Authority. That supervision was not withdrawn up to the very moment in November when the builders were told that this practice had to stop. It is true that they were told to go easy in 1958, but the supervisors continued and the work went on very well, with maximum employment in those yards.
The first warning we as Members of Parliament received last autumn was an S.O.S. from the Scottish Committee of the Authority saying that funds were running out and that work had to be slowed down as a result. Representatives of the boat builders' associations came to this House and, with me, talked the matter over with the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
I must say that commendable speed was shown by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretaries in getting an Order signed forthwith to prevent a hiatus. That Order was for £2 million. It was signed, and the Authority was told that it could anticipate Parliamentary consent. That temporary suspension became permanent, with several vessels on the stocks and partially built, and left the workmen uncertain about what was to happen.
As mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), the chairman of the Authority, when discussing the matter with the Secretary of State, mentioned that this decision was taken after discussions with the representative Scottish catchers, but, as the hon. Member also said, this memorandum of 15th March, representative of the views of all the Scottish catchers' associations—and I emphasise "all"—expresses a view

diametrically opposed to the decision announced by the Authority. That is the present position.
It is true that the Scottish Committee of the Authority has statutory powers, but I would emphasise that its decision flies in the face of the Fleck Report. It is a complete negation of the pronouncements of the Fleck Committee on the inshore fishing industry, which the Report singles out as being perhaps the most successful and progressive section of the entire fishing industry. One asks oneself why there should be all the flurry and all the rush in the autumn to get funds if this action was in mind. As I say, the Authority was told to anticipate parliamentary consent and to keep the work going.
My right hon. Friend, at the behest of several of us, has seen Sir John Ure Primrose who, apparently, has talked the Secretary of State into agreeing that in this regard the views of the Scottish Committee of the Authority are correct. I trust that the House will tell my right hon. Friend, the Government and the Authority in no uncertain terms that it does not agree.
Apart from fishing, this boat-building industry is the main wage-producing activity in the coastal belt of the North-East of Scotland, yet unemployment is now being deliberately and needlessly created by an arbitrary decision with no foundation of reason. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has mentioned apprentices. Many apprentices to boat building and the ancillary engineering industries—the making of winches, the fitting of engines and the like—have left, and are now working in Slough as casual labourers or as labourers in the building trade. They apprenticed themselves in order to become skilled workers but, to use a parliamentary term, the guillotine has fallen on them at an early stage in their career.
The Authority either will not or cannot realise that since the Icelandic settlement the fishing industry faces an entirely new set of conditions. Fishing limits are very much in the news. They have to be revised, and the inshore fishing fleet will play an ever-increasing part in supplying fresh fish. Further, the Authority cannot realise that, as I believe, the quayside prices of fish will during the coming years be higher than they ever were in the last few years, and


this will give the owners of vessels a much better chance than they had previously to repay their loans.
Parliament has a right to insist that the monies voted by us to the White Fish Authority for use in the fishing industry shall be used intelligently from every point of view; that those who go to sea will get the vessels they want, and get them speedily, and that those in the shipyards will have all the work that our efforts can bring them. I plead with my right hon. Friend to go back to the Authority and to its Scottish Committee, and tell them the views of this House.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: As so often in fishing debates, one feels it almost in bad taste, speaking after three Scots on the subject, to bring the debate back to the British fishing fleet, and the ports of Grimsby, Fleetwood and Hull. In general terms, I support the Clause, but it is a great deal more necessary than it was when the Bill was first introduced, in consequence of the terms—worse than many of us expected—of the Icelandic settlement.
I have one proviso, on which I should like the Minister to comment. I hold very strongly that when the Government and the White Fish Authority are distributing the loans that are sanctioned under the Clause—and the grants as well—they should not neglect the minority Report of the Fleck Committee, which suggests that in determining the distribution of these loans the Government should take a definite view on what the future pattern of the industry should be. On this, there was a clear division on principle between the majority and the minority of the Fleck Committee. I found the arguments of the majority extremely weak, and I should like to adduce one or two arguments on the side of the minority Report.
First, under the predecessors of this Bill—and partly in consequence of loans and grants from the Authority, but not solely—we have had a good deal of new investment in the industry in the last decade. The middle water fleet has been almost completely renovated, and the distant water fleet has had a good deal of new investment. But looking back on the investment carried out we must see that a large part has been misdirected.

We are now, therefore, in a position where we have a large number of conventional trawlers which, though of recent and good design, are not the best-equipped vessels in the fleet. I am, I admit, being wise after the event. It would have been much better if we had had fewer conventional new trawlers and more experiments, more part-freezers or freezers or factory ships. It is just conceivable, taking this as a general point, that some part of the misdirection of investment might have been avoided if the Government and the White Fish Authority had been equipped to take a rather clearer view of the future.
It is said by the majority, in opposing this attitude, that one cannot say anything about what the future shape of the fleet will be when discussing loans and grants. The whole thing is so uncertain and, in any case, so it is said, it is right to leave the matter to market forces. In fact, of course, the pressures which are being put on the industry and which will decide what the right type of investment is are not market forces at all. They are usually completely non-economic forces of a political character. The industry now is forced to condition itself to a new situation not because of any changes in market forces, supply and demand and so forth, but simply as a consequence of political decisions and political agreements about fishing limits. Therefore, I think that it was rather naive of the majority to say simply that the whole thing must be left to market forces.
I suggest to the Minister—this applies not only to the fishing industry—that it is a good general principle that, where the Government are giving or lending very substantial sums of money to an industry, as they will under the Bill, they should take a view about how the money should be spent. After all, the same Ministry which will ultimately be responsible for this money gives a great deal of money to the agricultural industry, to the farmers, but there, of course, it takes a most detailed view about what the pattern of agricultural output ought to be. We have the Annual Farm Price Review, which is deliberately and rightly used by the Ministry to impose a certain pattern of output on the industry.
I do not suggest that in the fishing industry anything like that degree of planning and control would be appropriate, but I do believe that the Ministry


and the White Fish Authority should take a further and clearer view in broad terms of the future pattern of investment than they have taken in the past. If this is to occur, we shall definitely need the single national body which the Fleck Committee suggested, and it may be that this will involve, if it is put into effect and if that kind of long-term view is taken, a considerable strengthening of the fishery department of the Ministry.
Finally, I have a question about dates of payment. When loans are given under the Clause and when grants come to be made to the distant water section of the fleet, will there be any possibility that the grants could be made retrospective to the date when the Fleck Committee reported? After all, it was the Fleck Committee which recommended that aid should be extended to the distant water section. Have the Government considered that and arrived at a view?
The main point I make is the general one that it seems to me that the minority Report advanced an extremely strong argument for saying not only that things should not be left entirely to the industry—of course, the industry must always take the detailed decisions—but that the Government and the new joint authority which we hope will emerge as a result of the Fleck Report should have a general view as to what the future shape of the industry should be.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) made a very important point about conventional trawlers and the misdirection of investment. I should very much welcome the comments of the Secretary of State on that and on the question my hon. Friend asked about how far the Government feel justified in taking an interest in this matter.
The Secretary of State teased me on Second Reading because, apart from the general argument, I made what he called a constituency point in a fishing debate, and my constituency is far from the sea. As I pointed out then, a great number of engines for trawlers are manufactured in Lincoln. Of course, they are chiefly for the trawlers with which my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby is concerned, the type of trawler which tends to operate from Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood.
I intervene here particularly because the impact of the Scottish Committee's decision goes far wider than Scotland. It is quite true that it cannot be said of any English or Welsh constituency that, in the words of the hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie), this decision has had a disastrous impact. We could not possibly say that, but, of course, it does affect other parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) at the start of his speech referred to the fact that the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority had refused loans for certain parts of the fishing fleet and that other sections of the fishing industry assumed that the Authority would suspend loans for other sections. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for Banff took the matter up. I think their questions can be summarised in this way. What about the boats on the stocks? Is approval to be given in respect of these boats?
The hon. Member for Banff asked the further very important question: is the Fleck Report to be accepted? What is the Government's view about it? It seems that we are starting to erode the findings of the Fleck Report. Is this the reason why the Government have been so slow to publish their views about the Fleck Report so that we may know them and debate them?
A further question asked by the hon. Member for Banff must surely be answered. If the inshore fleet is to be allowed to decline, are we to deduce from this that the Government have decided that they will stand pat on the territorial waters? Are we not justified in drawing such a conclusion?
The other matter on which we should have information was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby, namely, the question of the date and possible retrospection. This, too, is an important matter. There are important questions to be answered, and I know that the Secretary of State is anxious to answer them.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I will certainly do my best to answer all the points which have been raised, if I possibly can. If, at the end of my speech, I have omitted


something important, hon. Members will remind me. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), if he is in the Chamber, will do so.
I think that it was made clear during earlier stages of the Bill that the Government were very glad to hear the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House on the Fleck Report, but I said that it would be quite premature to express the Government's views on it at this stage. A great deal of consultation must go on. We have to assess all the implications of the Fleck Report before we can come to a sensible view. I do not imagine that hon. Members would expect me to deal with the detailed points that they have raised here. It would be neither wise nor constructive to do so. I have noted what has been said, particularly the point made by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland).
The main question arises out of the decision of the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority. Perhaps hon. Members will forgive me if I deal with this first. I assure the hon. Member for Grimsby that I shall touch on some English figures as well as Scottish figures. I am aware that there are some fishing boats south of the Border. The fact is brought to my notice from time to time. First, I should make clear what the decisions were. It is important to have the matter plain beyond a peradventure. There is not a complete embargo on the building of new vessels. I refer here to the decisions of the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority. There are two separate decisions with regard to two different classes of vessel.
First, as regards near and middle water trawlers, the Committee has decided to suspend any further approvals until September, when it will review the position in consultation with the industry. As regards seine net vessels, it has decided to regulate approvals so as to maintain the fleet at about its present level. There is no question of a dropping away of the fleet. This means, for example, that applications for new seine net vessels required to replace old ones to be scrapped will be eligible for consideration. The same applies to applications to install new engines and to build line or creel fishing boats.
I do not know whether that consoles the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). I do not know whether he builds engines for seine net vessels. I would point out to the hon. Member for Lincoln that I was not twitting him on making a constituency speech on a previous occasion. I was lost in admiration that he succeeded in doing it in a debate on the fishing industry.
8.0 p.m.
These decisions do not apply to seine net boats required by fishermen concerned in the Outer Isles training scheme. These, as well as line and creel fishing boats, will continue to be considered on their merits. There will not be a complete stoppage of new building although undoubtedly the number of new vessels approved will be much reduced.
The policy is to be reviewed in September in consultation with the industry. In the memorandum to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) referred, which was prepared by the Fishing Boat Builders' Association and the organisations representing Scottish inshore and herring fishermen, and which was sent, I believe, to a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, a different impression is given of the decisions which the Committee has taken.
It was suggested that the decisions represented unfair discrimination against the inshore fishermen. Whatever the effect that these decisions may have on the building of new boats it does not seem to me that they can be represented as unfair discrimination against the inshore fishermen. I think that the Memorandum must have been based on a misunderstanding of the facts.
The second point which I should like to make clear is that these are decisions of the Scottish Committee, taken on its own responsibility and in the exercise of its statutory duties.

Sir W. Duthie: It would be very helpful if my right hon. Friend could give us the reasons advanced by the Scottish Committee for taking the decision to keep the fleet at its present level.

Mr. Maclay: I will take that up as I go along.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: Does this apply only to Scotland?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, it is the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority that makes these decisions. The Committee was not obliged to seek, and did not seek, the prior approval of Ministers for these decisions. There is no reason why it should. It took them, as it was entitled to do, in pursuance of the statutory duty with which it had been specifically entrusted by Parliament; in other words, Parliament had specifically required the Authority, and in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Committee, in considering applications for grants, to have regard to the needs and interests of the industry as a whole.
I now come to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) raised. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Leith have made it clear over recent weeks how strongly they feel about this matter. In these circumstances, the Scottish Committee has quite properly exercised its function and it would not be right for me to seek to influence its decision or, as the memorandum to which I have referred urges, to ask the Committee to revise its decision.
I have had the opportunity, as hon. Members know, of discussing the position with the Committee's chairman, Sir John Ure Primrose, who assured me that the decision was taken after full consultation with the associations representing the Scottish catchers. I do not say that consultation necessarily means agreement, but it was taken after full consultation. The suspension of grants and loans for building new trawlers was specifically recommended to them by the Aberdeen Fishing Vessel Owners' Association and the Newhaven and Granton Trawler Owners' Association. These were specific recommendations of the two associations.
Sir John Ure Primrose assured me that the Committee reached its conclusion only after the fullest consideration of the present position of the Scottish fishing fleet and after full discussion of the position last autumn with representatives of all the Scottish catchers, including the inshore associations. It had these meetings and did not just take the recommendations that came from the two associations urging it to stop

approvals, but considered the matter very carefully and had full further consultations. It cannot be said that it was a hasty decision.
When I first heard of the decision I wondered what the back history was. I have had the full talk to which I have referred and I am now reporting to the hon. Members the reasons I was given. The decision followed on a comprehensive review and series of discussions which the Scottish Committee has been undertaking for some time concerning the size and composition of the Scottish fleet and the effect of the new building which has already taken place or been approved.
In the case of trawlers, 100 new diesel vessels had already been completed and applications in respect of a further 20 had been approved. Only 18 coal burning trawlers are left in the Scottish fleet, 11 at Aberdeen and seven at Granton and probably most of these will disappear when the remaining new diesels join the fleet.
As I said on Second Reading, we have virtually broken the back of the main job of modernisation on which we set out seven years ago. In the case of the seine net fleet, there has been considerable expansion over recent years, apparently as the result of the grant and loans given for new boats, and partly as a result of the changeover from herring fishing to white fish catching. Last year, the Scottish seine net fleet landed more white fish than the Scottish trawler fleet. This shows that very substantial progress has been made. In these circumstances, as I said in a previous debate, we cannot now expect the same impetus as before. I do not think that the Scottish Committee can be said to be wrong in going slow for a while so that it could review the position. It would not be proper for me to seek to influence the Committee in the exercise of its judgment and the discharge of its statutory function. I have satisfied myself that the Committee's decision is consistent with the obligations of the Authority to the fishing industry.
I realise, and so does the Scottish Committee, that from the point of view of the shipbuilders, as opposed to the fishing industry itself, the Committees' decision must be a very unwelcome one. Much as we all regret, and I certainly


do, the difficulties in which some of the building yards may find themselves, I think that it is clear than in administering the grant and loan schemes the Authority and its Scottish Committee must have regard primarily to the needs of the fishing industry.
Again, as I said on Second Reading, it would not be right to encourage the building of vessels whose prospects as fishing vessels would be open to doubt. We are faced with this unpleasant situation in which, unfortunately, the needs and interests of the fishing industry on the one hand and the ship building industry on the other do not point in the same direction. I do not think that the White Fish Authority can be blamed for taking the view that its first duty is to do what it thinks best for the fishing industry. There is no question of a stoppage of new building. There should be orders forthcoming for some of the yards, even though on a reduced scale. I think that it was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff that these decisions are inconsistent with and make pointless the provision of an extra £2 million for grants in the order which was approved by the House on 31st January and the extra £5 million for loans provided in Clause 2. I do not think that that is so. It was clear that the Authority's commitments would, before long, have completely exhausted the funds available and if we had not provided additional grant money and made provision in the Bill for additional loans, grants and loans would have had to be stopped altogether.
Trawler building grants and loans are suspended only until next September. They may thereafter be resumed. Indeed, the trawler owners have specifically and quite reasonably requested that an appropriate sum be kept in reserve against that possibility, which cannot be done unless the Bill is passed.
Some inshore vessels will still be built. Finally of course the funds are for Great Britain as a whole and not only for Scotland. I have gone into the Scottish position for obvious reasons. Hon. Members would wish to know, I think, what is the position in England and Wales. Here, about 160 new trawlers have been built with the aid of grants and loans and 40 more have been

approved. The coal burning fleet is down to less than 70. There are, however, some ports where progress has not been satisfactory and some building still remains to be done. The Authority will, therefore, be continuing to approve new construction, but on a selective basis, and the number of approvals is likely to be smaller than it has been of late.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Of the total of new ships built for England and Wales, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many have been built outside this country?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot give that figure. The loans which are under consideration extend to processing plant in England and Scotland and some provision is also necessary for them.
To repeat, the sums to be provided were carefully considered in consultation with the Authority. We knew and took into account at that stage that there was likely to be some slowing down of approvals. I have explained in some detail why I take that view.

Mr. Hoy: Surely if boats had been built outside Britain they would not have qualified for a grant or loan.

Mr. Maclay: I did not think that the lion. Member meant that.

Mr. Loughlin: I did not necessarily.

Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the number of trawlers. The hon. Member was asking how many boats had been built outside Britain, not necessarily with grants and loans, for which they would, of course, not be eligible. He merely wanted to know the general figures.
I wish to run steadily through the sequence of events leading up to the White Fish Authority's decision. The hon. Member for Leith and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff referred to the question of what has become known as "speculative building". In August, 1958, the Scottish Committee found that a number of builders were adopting this practice of building "on spec"—that is to say, they were building fishing boats before they had received orders from fishermen and before applications for grants and loans were considered by or even submitted to the Authority. The


Scottish Committee warned the builders by letter that this practice was likely to lead to difficulties and that the Committee could not be regarded as in any way committed to approving subsequent applications for grants for such boats on the ground that work on them had been started.
In view of the representations made by the Scottish builders about the recession in boat building at that time, the Committee agreed in December, 1958, as a special measure, that on certain conditions applications for grant would not be ruled out merely because work had been undertaken in advance of approval. The conditions were that the prior approval of the Authority should be obtained for such advance building—it is very important to note that point—and that the work was to be carried out under the supervision of the technical officers in the same way as work in respect of boats for which applications for grant had been approved.
I would emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff—I realise how strongly he feels on this matter—that this has always been the practice, since 1958 anyway—that the prior approval of the Authority was necessary before speculative building was started: otherwise it would not guarantee anything about grants and loans for these ships. That point was touched on by several hon. Members. I hope that the position is now clear.
I was asked if work on ships which had been previously approved would be gone ahead with. There is no reason to believe that anything other than that will happen. Where specific approval has been given by the Authority, it will, of course, honour its approval. I cannot say that it will help ships which have been built on speculation without the prior approval of the Authority.
I have dealt with the meeting with the inshore fishermen which took place. I am not implying that there was an agreement, but there was consultation. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked if this decision of the Scottish Committee was taken as a result of the Fleck Committee's Report. He answered that question himself by saying that it was taken before the Fleck Committee's Report was made. This decision was made with full consideration of its

responsibility for the fishing fleet as a whole and for the fishing industry.
What does it mean in terms of unemployment? I have tried to get the figures, but it is extremely difficult to judge accurately the result. The unemployment figures for this area—that is. Anstruther, Buckie, Fraserburgh, Banff, Peterhead, Aberdeen, Montrose and Arbroath—have been improving considerably over the last year. They are a good deal better. The total figure of unemployed in shipbuilding and ship repairing on 13th March is 166. It is very difficult to see what effect these decisions will have in the next few months, but I emphasise that some yards have already done something which I hope many others will do most energetically, namely, look for other markets and get into this interesting, important and growing business of building the smaller type of pleasure yacht, which is becoming an important part of the life of the community. One or two yards have found a real market for this type of vessel. These boats were shown at the Glasgow show and at other shows, and they are selling. I hope that yards will turn their attention to this kind of diversification in production.
8.15 p.m.
I think that I have covered the detailed questions which I did not cover in my main remarks and which I wanted to go through carefully. While fully appreciating the anxiety of hon. Members about this decision of the White Fish Authority, I cannot say that I think that it was wrong. It certainly had the right to make the decision on its own account, without any consultation with me, which is what it did, and I only hope that the consequences to the shipbuilding yards, which cause me great concern, will not be as serious as some people have forecast. I hope that we can get this Clause, because it will help to obviate some of the difficulties of which hon. Members are fearful.

Mr. Hoy: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) about interest payments and retrospective treatment?

Mr. Maclay: That was a point which I thought I could not properly be expected to answer in advance of full consideration of the Fleck Report. Owing


to no fault of his, the hon. Member was not in such a good position to listen to my answer as he might otherwise have been. Anyway, the answer was not much use to him. I said that this was another matter which would have to wait pending the Fleck Report.

Mr. Hoy: I was interested in what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. I am sorry if I appeared to misunderstand the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) about subsidised shipping. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was giving figures for the number of boats built under the subsidy scheme.

Mr. Maclay: indicated assent.

Mr. Hoy: Apparently that is true. It is true that one or two distant water trawlers have been built in foreign yards. All we can hope is that that will not be permitted when the new scheme comes into operation and when Government money is involved.
It is true that there may be only 166 unemployed people in North-East Scotland at present, but the right hon. Gentleman must also take into consideration the fact that many people are having to leave the area. Only this week—this is what I would like my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite from south of the border to understand—there were representatives of firms from Corby selecting 200 men in Aberdeen and Stone-haven to take them south of the border. That will cure unemployment up there, but it is having a tremendously hard effect on the economic life of Scotland. If we keep taking people out of Scotland, we can solve unemployment in that fashion—

Mr. Loughlin: There is a terrific fallacy in my hon. Friend's argument. I very much appreciate the difficulties of our Scottish friends concerning unemployment and emigration. I am a victim of precisely the same thing in my constituency. The logic of the argument now being advanced is that the Scottish White Fish Authority should make grants, irrespective of the economic consequences to the present fishing fleet, for the sole purpose of maintaining employment in the shipyards. I hope that my hon. Friend does not mean this, and I

wish to give him the opportunity of saynig that that is not the impression which he wishes to convey.

Mr. Hoy: That is exactly what I am not saying. The Secretary of State for Scotland was saying that he had no right to interfere with the White Fish Authority in its grants and loans policy. I am not asking him to do so. What I am saying is that he cannot absolve himself from his personal responsibility for this problem.

Mr. Willis: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hoy: When one thinks of certain other industries that receive millions of pounds per annum for providing employment, I might drive my argument a little further by saying that that kind of thing might not be going too far in these places where work is so scarce. I am arguing that we must have an economic use of the money. It may be that we would have to divert boat-building orders to these places rather than by economic policy drive the people out of them. That is what I want the Government to understand. While I agree that Sir John Primrose and his Committee have done a first-class job, we, on the other hand, have responsibilities to our people. If economic circumstances drive them out of these parts, we are entitled to use the House of Commons to ask the Government to take action to make it at least economically possible for working people to live in these parts.

Sir W. Duthie: Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has expressed his sympathy with the people of the North-East, in the shipyards and elsewhere, who have been so hardly hit, will he undertake to use his greatest possible influence with the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority to ensure that approval and grants and loans will be given for the vessels now in the shipyards partially completed? This would provide work and would tail off the scheme, if it is to be tailed off, in September. It would provide much necessary employment.
The builders have not started these vessels without a certain measure of official approval. The White Fish Authority has been au fait with what has been going on and has expressed its approval. It may have been only tacit


approval, but it was given by the officials and was taken by the builders as official approval by the White Fish Authority. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to do his best to remedy this situation.

Mr. Willis: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for the information he has given us about this matter. I do not often say that, but I thought that I should preface my remarks by saying it on this occasion. I still regard the position as unsatisfactory, however, and I want to say why. Apparently, the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority has decided that until further notice the seine net fleet will be maintained at its present level. As I have pointed out earlier, this is more or less in accordance with the proposal of the Fleck Committee. What I object to, however, is that this decision should be made in respect of Scotland and not of the rest of the United Kingdom.
If the proposals of the Fleck Committee are to be adopted by the Government, it seems to me that we have jumped the gun in limiting the size of the Scottish fleet. That is quite wrong, and I cannot see the reason for doing this. Whilst it is true that in the trawler section of the fleet a halt in the building programme was asked for, it is obvious from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the seine netters did not ask for a halt. They might have been consulted, but they certainly did not ask for a halt. I do not think that anybody else asked for a halt, certainly not the representatives of the fishermen's associations who met the right hon. Gentleman's Department.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member asks why this has happened to Scotland but not to the rest of the United Kingdom. In ports where there are sufficient ships—for example, in my own constituency—there is a standstill in the granting of loans for new ships until the autumn. The reason is that we cannot get the crews to man these ships. That is the reason for the standstill in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Willis: That is a different matter. Because there is a shortage of manpower in Lowestoft does not mean that Scotland must be treated the same as

Lowestoft. I know Lowestoft quite well and I know the North-East quite well. Certainly, there is a vast difference in the problems facing the North-East. The trouble is that men in Scotland have to come down South to get jobs.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I was not talking about the shipbuilding side. There again, we are extremely worried. We would like many more ships to be built in our yards. I was talking about the crews to man the ships. If we cannot get crews to man the ships, it is no good building the ships.

Mr. Willis: We have men for crews, too. The unfortunate thing is that the numbers have been diminishing for the last 20 or 30 years. There are only a small number in my constituency. The numbers have been halved within a comparatively short time. The point I am making is that we cannot afford this to happen in Scotland.
It might seem that we make a great to-do about something which down South might seem a small affair, but we cannot afford this to happen in the North-East and down the East Coast. Already, we have a drift of population from those areas into the Lowland belt of Scotland and from the Lowland belt down into England. This is one of the problems that we are up against. If the Government always willingly accept this migration, we might just as well give up struggling to build a healthy economy in Scotland. That is why the matter is serious.
I asked about the unemployed. Oddly, enough, we have had answers about this. In the document for 15th March, it is said that already there were over 100 unemployed and that the number would increase. The hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) said that in his constituency alone there were many more than that, but the Secretary of State tells us that there are only 165 down the whole of the North-East, round the North-East corner right down to the Forth. There is something wrong somewhere. These figures do not conform. Whatever the differences between them, it is obvious that there is here a problem. We ought to know more about it.
The Secretary of State said that the boat-building industry must expect to build fewer boats for some time. What


did he mean by that? Did he mean until September, October or November? Is it then to expect to be able to build more? My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) shakes his head. I am trying to obtain information which the industry is entitled to have at least as fully as the Government can give. This information is vital to the lifeblood of the small communities. We have unemployment already and we want to know what the future will be. We want as much information as we can get.
This raises the whole question of apprenticeships in the industry. Our problem in Scotland is much bigger than south of the Border. We raise it week after week on the Floor of the House. If the apprenticeships are to disappear from the industry, that will aggravate the problem. It is all very well for hon. Members to shake their heads and wonder why we make a noise. This is the place where we ought to make a noise. This is what the House is for—to try to impress upon the Government that this process must stop. We have seen fishing villages die in Scotland. I could take hon. Members round a number of ports which are almost at a standstill and practically dead. There are others where there are now about half the number of boats that were there previously. This is why we are very concerned about the provisions of the Bill.
8.30 p.m.
Although I am grateful to the Secretary of State, I am not satisfied with his answer, nor with the explanations that have been given. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has paid enough attention to the future. We want to know something about the future. It might be that if unemployment increases in these areas they can be scheduled under the Local Employment Act as areas of rising unemployment. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is no good."] It is supposed to be beneficial and that is why we should like as much information as possible. Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give that information now I sincerely trust that he will treat this matter seriously and that at least he will try to get other forms of industry into these areas to prevent the tragic loss of men and women from them.

Mr. Loughlin: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, for I shall make

my position quite clear on Third Reading. I am possibly the only hon. Member on either side of the House who opposes the Bill. I cannot understand the indignation of some of my hon. Friends who, supporting a Bill of this kind, see its baleful implications as applied in their own constituencies and then cry out that they want something else done.
It is not unusual, or rather it can be expected, that when Government grants are given to an industry and the body that controls the degree of grant that shall be made begins to consult associations representing the industry there comes a point at which the number of boats built means that at a given figure each boat is an economic unit in the industry, but once there is building in excess of that figure each boat becomes an uneconomic unit. If we are to consult associations representing boat owners and ask them how many boats they think we should build their first concern will be how many boats they need to ensure the rate of profits that they desire. It is no use my hon. Friends supporting Measures of this kind and then crying out about their effects.
I would be the last person to suggest that the solution to the unemployment problem in the shipyards of Scotland is to build boats ad infinitum. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) became really indignant at the suggestion that his constituents have been out of jobs because of the lack of building of these boats.

Mr. Willis: Not my constituents—the people of Scotland.

Mr. Loughlin: Very well, the people of my hon. Friend's native land. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not Scotland."] All right, the hon. Member's adopted land. My difficulty is that I do not know an Englishman if he speaks a Scottish dialect.

Mr. Willis: I do not speak a Scottish dialect.

Mr. Loughlin: It may well not be. A pure Scotsman may be able to distinguish it, but it does not seem to me to be very much like English. Whether my hon. Friend is native or adopted. I do


not think that he can expect the Government to solve the problem of unemployment in Scottish shipyards on the basis of building this type of boat. He should know that that is not the solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said of the Local Employment Act, 1960, that it was not a solution to the problem of these areas. Nor will there ever be a solution to our unemployment until the Government come to this side of the Committee. The sooner we start arguing that case, instead of wasting our energies talking about things that are of no value, the better it will be for us, and the quicker the Government will go out. Once this Bill is set up, the industry itself will determine the number of boats to be built and operated. There is no solution in this Bill for the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East.

Mr. Ede: This debate is very reminiscent to those of us who recollect the plight of the shipbuilding industry between the two wars. We are seeing again a repetition of the breaking up of teams of men. I am told that people go from Corby to shipping ports to pick up young men, take them out of the shipbuilding industry, and put them into another industry.
The Government forget that we are an island and there come times in our history when our very survival depends upon having teams of shipbuilders who can provide the ships which are essential in the hours of peril which we have to face from time to time. Again we see the sort of situation that applied between the two world wars. These men did not go to Corby then from the shipyards. They had been, for instance, on the Tyne when the industry there was reasonably prosperous—before, in the great words of Ellen Wilkinson, Jarrow was "murdered". Part of Jarrow at that time was in my constituency. I traced these men later on in Birmingham, repairing barges at a time when they were needed to build sea-going ships.
Let us be under no doubt. It is no good people on this side of the House trying to provide better answers for the Government than the Government can dream up for themselves, because that is no great strain on anybody's intelligence. I hope that the Secretary of

State and the Minister of Agriculture will realise that what has been raised by my hon. Friends, who speak with some indignation, is a warning that this is one industry that we cannot allow to decline in times of what is now called affluence—although one does not find much affluence in the shipbuilding industry—because we shall want these men in this trade if ever again, unfortunately, we are fighting to keep the sea lanes open.

Mr. George Jeger: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has referred movingly to the break-up of the shipbuilding crews, and that does not apply only to the part of the country which he has represented in this Committee for so long and which he knows so well.
We are facing the same problem in Goole, which is a small shipbuilding port and which also has engineering works. The orders for new ships are coming in slowly and gradually and piecemeal. What affects us particularly is the very slow way in which the trawler fleets of Britain are being modernised and re-equipped with the most modern form of equipment and made speedier so that we can have fresher fish landed at the fishing ports. We do not fish from Goole, but we build the trawlers, and we are vitally affected by what happens to shipbuilding.
It has been said that there is very little unemployment among men in my constituency. However, there is much concealed unemployment because the shortage of work in the shipyards has led to men going to work outside Goole because there is no other work for them in the town. If there were more shipbuilding orders in Goole, men would not have to travel 20 miles or more to steel works or factories in other parts of Yorkshire, or even into Lincolnshire to get work. Although we do not do any fishing from Goole, we are vitally affected by the Bill.
Clause 2 lays down that the advances which can be made are to be increased from £20 million to £25 million, so that we are discussing a matter of £5 million. That is the sum to be spent on making loans for the acquisition and modernisation of fishing vessels not exceeding 140 feet in length which was previously the rule but which has now been extended


by Clause 1, and for the construction of plants for the processing of white fish.
Owing to changes in the structure of the fishing industry, particularly around Iceland, our trawlers and other fishing vessels will now have to travel much greater distances. I gather from those who like collecting figures that the return voyage from the Humber ports to Greenland will be 3,214 miles and to the West side of Greenland—

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): Clause 2 does not refer to the distant water fleet, about which the hon. Member is speaking.

Mr. Jeger: That may be so, but it refers to the general structure of the loans which may be granted, and most of the near and middle water fishing fleets will have to be converted into distant water vessels if there is to be any fish brought here. Most of the fish landed in this country is brought by the distant water fleet and not by the near and middle water fleets. There will obviously have to be a change in the structure of the industry before long and that is a factor which must be considered. It may be said that this is a subject which will be better debated when we consider the Fleck Report, but we cannot dismiss it from our minds when considering what loans or grants should be made to the industry so that it can function more efficiently.
I was about to say that the fleet which now goes to distant waters will have to go even longer distances. At present it consists of 235 ships of which 37 are coal burners, which will consequently have to be modernised and changed over to diesel. How many trawlers can be re-equipped and modernised for £5 million when a diesel electric trawler costs between £350,000 and £380,000 to build?

Mr. Soames: It is not £5 million more, and it is not a matter of the difference between £25 million and £20 million. Clause 2 provides that the amount outstanding at any one time can be £25 million instead of £20 million, and that bears no relationship whatever to the total amount of the loans. The total amount which could be outstanding at any one time was £20 million and that is being increased to £25 million. That

does not mean that only £5 million more is to be loaned.
I must again say that Clause 2 does not refer to the distant water fleet about which the hon. Member has given figures. This is not an endeavour to provide loans for the building of a distant water fleet. The Committee as a whole is well acquainted with that fact, and that problem is something which we will have to tackle in the light of the Fleck Committee Report. The Clause is merely an extension of the existing loan arrangements for the middle, near and inshore fleets.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Jeger: That may be so, but it will be the concern of trawler owners to modernise their fleets as quickly as possible; otherwise they will be left sadly behind in the fish war that is about to start between Britain and the other fishing countries. It may be that the figure of £5 million is not the exact increase in the amount to be lent. At the same time, it will be about that figure.
I agree that some returns of loans will be coming in and that the total amount dealt with will be £25 million, but the increase from £20 million to £25 million represents a basic increase of £5 million, plus a little that will have accrued in the meantime which will have reduced the previous authorisation to a figure slightly below £20 million. It still means that the total ceiling will be £25 million, and within that sum there is little scope for the construction of processing plant in addition to the acquiring and modernising of trawlers. We regard the sum of £25 million as too little. We believe that it should be increased, and that in the light of the new development of the industry there should be further provision for the modernisation of the fishing fleet.
The question of the shortage of crews has also been referred to. Young men are leaving the industry. It may be that when the fleets are augmented with the new trawlers there will be a shortage of crews for them, but whose fault is that? The situation will have arisen because of the neglect of the Government in the past to make the fishing industry one in which there was a certainty of employment and good career prospects. It is the uncertainty in the industry which is causing the shortage today, and which


may result in a future shortage of crews for the modern vessels.
Although we shall not divide the Committee tonight, I hope that the Minister will realise—

Mr. Loughlin: Why should we not divide the Committee?

Mr. Jeger: Because it provides grants, with which we are in favour, and we do not want to deprive the industry of them. I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to a still further extension of these provisions in the future, and that when we discuss the Fleck Report we can regard this as part of a comprehensive scheme for the improvement of the industry.

Mr. William Ross: I rise only because I am very dissatisfied with the remarks of the Secretary of State. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) that we would not think of voting against the provision of these extended benefits to the fishing fleet.

Mr. Loughlin: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Ross: I am speaking for myself, and I trust that my hon. Friend is speaking for himself. We are troubled by the fact that, despite the extension provided by the Clause, we have been told that there will be a restriction of modernisation and replacement in respect of the Scottish near and middle water fleets. This certainly gives Scottish Members cause to consider what line they should pursue with the Secretary of State. On many occasions we have claimed that we should have a special voice and give special consideration to the interests of Scotland, and we now have a Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority. But no one would doubt that the various parts of the United Kingdom industry, doing the same job and covered by the same legislation, have roughly the same problems to face.
There will be a restriction in relation to the Scottish fleet, which will be affected by what happens in England. If the building goes on, not in relation to the near-water fleet perhaps but certainly in relation to the middle-water fleet, where they may well be fishing exactly the same grounds, the later

development of the Scottish fleet may well be endangered. From the point of view of avoiding disputes between the two fleets, surely there ought to have been adequate consultation between the two committees. Has there been any consultation? I find it difficult to believe that the Scottish committee took this decision without any consultation or effort to see what was happening south of the Border.
I do not think anyone should complain because we in Scotland draw attention to the fact that even on the figures given by the Secretary of State, in one scattered part of Scotland, where we find it most difficult to attract industry, we are faced with more unemployment as a result of this standstill. Unemployment to the extent of 165 men does not mean much in a large city in the Midlands, but it means a great deal in small villages which are dependent on these small industries. Once the small industries decline, the village declines and men move away. In the light of that, a difficult position is created when the Scottish committee takes this decision without relation to what is happening elsewhere.
It is a strange position for the Secretary of State who, apart from his responsibility in relation to fishing, has overall responsibility in relation to employment in Scotland. He knows that one area there has been scheduled, and the hon. Member for that area can tell him how little has been done to attract new industries. It is very difficult to attract new industries into this kind of area; it is far easier to keep industries going.
A standstill means unemployment, which means that people must move away, which means that the area will not be able to cope with any resurgence of the industry, which will go instead to other building areas which are being kept alive. It is certainly better to keep the area alive and not to have this haphazard planning in relation to England and Scotland which we seem to have.
I hope that the Secretary of State will think seriously over what has been said to him. I was very troubled when I heard the speech about these boats which have already been started and the number of people employed there. To such an area it means as much as John Brown's yards mean to the Clyde. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will


reconsider the position. This is something related not to the committee, but to his power of approval.

Mr. Maclay: The debate has taken a rather curious turn. I am not complaining of it for one moment.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman had better not complain of it.

Mr. Maclay: I shall complain if I think that it is necessary.
The debate has moved into an employment debate. I do not complain, because employment is involved, but in the process I find myself in the astonishing position, after having been thanked for my reply by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), if not the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), of very nearly having to defend the antecedents of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East from a savage attack by one of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Loughlin: I should like to correct that. I should not like that to go on the official record. It was not a savage attack.

Mr. Maclay: In the hon. Member's part of the country it would be regarded as a very savage attack indeed. We had better leave that, or I shall be in trouble again.

Mr. Willis: We welcome hundreds of Scots in my part of the country—Norfolk. In fact, they almost run the county now, and I am a refugee.

Mr. Maclay: I do not hold anything against Norfolk. I got my wife from Norfolk. That puts us all square. Perhaps a better term would be that we have a point in common. But I must now get back to the subject of fishing, or I may be in real trouble with the Chair and the Committee.
What has been discussed in the last quarter of an hour is the effect of unemployment in the North of Scotland. I assure the Committee that I am just as concerned as any other hon. Member about anything which reduces the employment opportunities in that or any other part of Scotland. I repeat what I said briefly in my earlier remarks, that this need not necessarily mean the break-up of teams of men—not necessarily, though it may if the conditions run on too long.
There is a real opportunity for the yards building the smaller types of ship to go out for different markets and not remain concentrated on fishing-type boats. This applies to various yards on the West Coast and to some yards on the East Coast. I am sure that I need hardly say this, but I hope that the yards concerned will explore any possibility of widening the market and not being completely dependent upon fishing craft.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked me whether I could not say more about the future. I am used to doing a good deal of crystal ball gazing—one has to do it at times—but on this occasion I would say that one cannot forecast precisely the effect of what has happened on the building of fishing boats. For the reasons which I have given, it has not stopped altogether anyway. One cannot forecast the effect on employment. Other outlets may become available.
The so-called standstill, or partial standstill, runs only until September, when it has been agreed that the White Fish Authority will re-examine the whole position. As to what will happen after that, I cannot foretell the future. A great deal in the future will depend upon the decisions which arise from the Fleck Report I hope that we shall not get into the position that the skills of these men disappear. I should be very concerned if that happened. I hope that it will be possible for the men to go back if they do have to leave. That has happened in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) made a plea about the ships now building in the yards in his constituency and urged that they should at least be allowed to go ahead. I can only repeat what I said in my earlier speech, that where ships have been approved by the White Fish Authority they will, of course, go ahead. But I could not say that special regard should be paid to boats being built "on spec.", because that would be grossly unfair to the other yards which have not done that sort of thing.
I do not think that it would be right for me to say that I would put pressure on the White Fish Authority to pay special regard to the cases where boats were being built on spec. without having had the prior authority of the Authority.


That would be unfair to yards which have paid full regard to the warning given by the Authority some years ago.
Having said that, I repeat that the Clause is helpful and necessary—

Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about consultations with England?

Mr. Maclay: I am glad that the hon. Member has reminded me of that. I think that there is some misunderstanding here. Of course, the Scottish Committee is part of the White Fish Authority and is in constant consultation with the rest of the Authority. This means that there is consultation with England. But that is not the real point. The real point is that the Committee has to look at the position in relation to the ports and fishing areas and what is happening in the areas fished by Scottish boats and the ports where Scottish boats land their catches. It is bound to do that.
I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) knows better than anybody else that this question of overloading ports with one type or other or with too many of both types—trawlers and seine netters—can lead to trouble. There has been discussion for many years whether the seine net fleet has not become too big and is spoiling things for the trawler fleet. This is the kind of difficult problem which the White Fish Authority has to consider the whole time. It is not a question of Scotland versus England. It is a matter of looking at the Scottish fishing fleet and doing what is best in its interests.
I think I have covered nearly every question asked of me and perhaps now we can accept this Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not think the House will wish me to speak for long. I have been saying a good deal in the last three-quarters of an hour which I should only repeat if I went into detail about what this Bill is designed to do. It is a small but important Measure. It is no way part of the long-term arrangements which we may decide to propose to the House after a full consideration of the Fleck Committee Report, and that deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). This is a holding Measure to deal with important matters to be attended to during the time which it will take to reach a decision on the long-term position. I do not wish to bore the House after our somewhat protracted discussions during the Committee stage. I commend this Bill to hon. Members as a useful Measure which we need.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin: I think that this is a bad Bill which ought to be opposed. It is effrontery on the part of the Government to present it to the House, particularly at this time. I wish to make perfectly clear that I am not attacking those who man our fishing fleet. Although I am no longer associated with the industry, I have a personal interest in that members of my family are still trawling and I have a great admiration for the men in our fishing fleet, both the inshore and the deep sea fishermen. Therefore, anything I say in opposing this Bill should not be taken as a reflection on the courage of the men upon whom this country relies so much when the defence of our nation is involved.
I oppose the Bill largely because of the provisions in Clause 1 which extends the operational subsidies to the deep water vessels. I consider that a misuse of public money. It may be argued that taxpayers' money should be used to assist the inshore fishermen where there is an entirely different set-up regarding the ownership of the vessels from that which applies to the deep-water fleet. It may be arguable, though I should not like to advance the argument, that subsidies should be given to trawler owners operating North Sea vessels. It might even be argued that a case could be built to give subsidies to the Faroes ships. I should not like to argue about that.
I defy the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to argue the case for any of the categories of vessels I have described, other than those of the inshore fishermen, on the pure economics of the fishing industry. That is a challenge which the Minister, if he is responsible in the pursuance of his duties as a Minister of the Crown, ought to accept. We have had repeated statements by representatives of the Government, particularly in the last few weeks, about the basis on which taxpayers' money ought to be used in subsidies. I repeat the challenge to the Minister because I think it important. He ought to be able to argue for the expenditure of public money to any section of the fishing industry on the basis of the economics of the industry itself. If he cannot do so, I charge him with not carrying out in a responsible fashion the duty imposed upon him as a Minister of the Crown.
We have had long debates recently involving the whole question of subsidies. It amazes me that some of my hon. Friends have seen fit to argue the case for the application of this Measure. Even as late as last night we had a debate in which a statement was made as to the basis on which public money should be paid. That is what we are dealing with in this debate, and in a debate of this kind it cannot be restricted specifically to the spending of this precise amount. One has to compare the spending of public money in the form of subsidies throughout the whole economy if we are to get this debate into proper perspective.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but this is a Third Readng debate when we are restricted to debating what is included in the Bill, not what might be in it.

Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful for your correction, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am always willing to be corrected by the Chair, because the Chair in this House is generally fair. May I submit this to you? This Bill contains a provision in Clause 1 which involves the spending of public money which is not defined. The total of it is not known. It is not specifically stated what amount of the taxpayers' money will be given to this industry in the form of subsidies. May I draw your

attention to the words in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum? It says that Clause 1 is an amendment making for a scheme
providing for the payment of subsidy whatever the length of the vessel concerned and and without regard to the waters in which the voyages have been made or the fish caught.
At the end, after referring to an order-making power, it says:
… the order-making power will be exerciseable from time to time, but no one increase is to exceed £3 million.

Mr. Soames: Further to the Ruling you gave, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Has the hon. Gentleman understood the Bill fully? The Bill does not empower me to pay an operating subsidy to the distant water fleet. It no longer debars me from making an order, which will require an affirmative Resolution, to give an operating subsidy for the fleet. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill, if it receives a Third Reading, will not empower me to pay a subsidy to the distant water fleet.

Mr. Loughlin: I am very sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is so bankrupt of arguments to advance for the Bill that he has to resort to splitting hairs. He knows as well as I do that the Bill empowers him to bring an Order before the House from time to time to extend subsidies by £3 million, or to the maximum of £3 million, to deep water vessels. If he imagines that I am not conversant with the provisions of the Bill, he should think again.
The submission I was making to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was this. The Bill contains a provision for the spending of public money. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect hon. Members to compare Government policy on the spending of public money with the provisions of the Bill. I do not for one moment want to impinge upon your rights, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I certainly do not wish to challenge your Ruling. The Bill, although it extends the subsidy to deep water vessels, is bad because it extends the subsidy without any consideration of the economic stability of the operators of the vessel.
If we are to spend public money in the form of subsidies of this kind to the industry, the public, whom we represent, should be assured that the industry needs the money. Why do we want to spend


the money? Why does the Minister come to the House and say that the money is necessary in the interests of the industry? Ai no stage in the debate has he attempted to argue that it is essential for the economic well-being of the industry that the subsidy should be advanced to deep water vessels. I have read the Second Reading debate and the other part of the Committee stage. I have also listened to this debate. In the granting of public moneys it would be reasonable to apply to this industry the same test that the Government say should be applied to old-age pensioners, and to local authorities for housing—whether the expenditure is necessary and whether the industry needs the money.
From some of the debates we have had on this industry one would imagine that we were giving subsidies to poor men who go down to the sea and operate the trawlers themselves. If it were a question of three or four members of the crew operating the ship the argument might be sustained, but that it is certainly not so in the case of the deep-sea vessels. We know that the deep-sea side of the industry is earning fabulous profits.
The national award to what is known in the ports as the "top skipper" was recently made to last year's top skipper, who earned £10,000 for himself. It might be argued that all skippers do not earn £10,000 a year, but the same man, who was not the top skipper in the three previous years, stated that his average annual earnings in those three previous years was £8,500. He does not own the boat—he merely sails it on a poundage basis, and the boat he sailed last year landed fish to the value of £152,000. This is one ship.
This is the industry to which we are asked to give operational subsidies. Why? Is it not the Minister's responsibility to argue the case on an economic basis? If the old-age pensioner wants to retrieve the 2s. she pays in prescription charges, she has to prove her need. So should this industry prove its need if it wants subsidies. If the Government apply to the old-age pensioners a yardstick different from that which they apply to this industry, they are not facing up to their responsibility.
Excluding the inshore and the seine net boats, there are 171 vessels sailing from the port of Grimsby. There are 71 deep-sea vessels, 44 Faroe vessels, and 56 North Sea vessels. As I have said, it might be possible to argue a case for the North Sea and the Faroe vessels—although I would not like to try—but the whole of those 171 vessels are owned by 11 firms. Of the 71 deep water vessels, 54 are owned by three firms, and the other 17 are owned by three other firms.
That means that six firms actually own and operate the 71 deep water vessels that trade from Grimsby. This is important, because what I seek to show is that this is a very highly concentrated industry, controlled by a very limited number of people. This is by no means a question of ships being owned by the crews. I think that the Minister will agree that 54 vessels out of a total of 71, and those owned by only three firms, is a substantial proportion of the total number of deep water vessels being operated. These firms do more than own deep water vessels. They also own some of the North Sea and Faroe vessels. If one were to argue that three firms owned 54 deep water vessels running from the Grimsby ports, one would give the wrong picture. They are much bigger firms than that. Who are they?
First, there is the Northern Trawlers, owning 29 vessels. This company owns or has interests in vessels in Hull and other ports. It is associated in merchanting, in curing, in deep-freezing, in retailing. It owns the business producing "Eskimo" brand deep-frozen products. In practice, it is in every possible aspect of the fishing industry.
What applies to Northern Trawlers applies equally to the Ross Group and to Consolidated Fisheries of Grimsby, the other two firms controlling the bulk of ships running from the Grimsby ports. Each one of them operates not just as a trawler owner. We are told that these poor, downcast industrialists need subsidies. They have to come to the House of Commons and ask for public money to be put in their laps. They own the boats. They own merchanting organisations, curing organisations and deep-freezing organisations. They own wet fish shops and they own fish and chip shops. They own cold stores and they provide all their own provisions. They


own tugs. This is the scandal in the distribution of taxpayers' money to which this country is descending.
I am in favour of attempting to reorganise the fishing industry. Before ever the industry had any assistance from the House of Commons, I would say to it, "Put your own house in order first". At an earlier stage of the Bill, my hon. Friends from Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger)—I had a little argument with him about it—complained at the lack of orders coming into the shipbuilding yards. They argued that one way of maintaining employment in some of the Scottish shipyards would be to have ships built irrespective of the total of ships which would operate.
It would not be a bad idea if those now running from the ports of Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood who are to receive operational subsidies decided to have their ships built in this country. If the Government intend to pay operational subsidies to the deep-sea trawler owners, they ought at least to see that the ships which will qualify for the operational subsidies have been built in British shipyards. The Minister ought to be in a position now to tell us how many of the trawlers operating from the three major ports during the past twelve months—I am not asking for a lot; I am forgetting a great many ports, taking only Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood—were built in German shipyards. If he knows the answer, which I do not suppose he does, and he wants to answer now, I shall willingly sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must please restrict his speech to what is within the Bill. Asking questions outside the Bill and expecting an answer would be out of order.

Mr. Loughlin: I did not think that it would be out of order in asking that the operational subsidy embodied in the Bill should be applied in a given way. The Bill gives provision to the Minister to come to this House—I want to be perfectly correct as he is bound to split hairs with me again—and to ask this House, by affirmative Resolution, to grant him some money from time to time up to a maximum of £3 million. We ought to be able to say, if not now at the time of the requesting of the affirmative Resolution—and unless we

have the answers now we shall not know then—that the money which he is asking us to grant to him should be spent with at least some limitation. If I am out of order in asking the right hon. Gentleman to give me information which he has not got, I am quite willing to move on from that point and to deal with something else.
What is the real nature of the Bill? Here again, I want to try to avoid being out of order too much, but I think that we ought to have from the Government the real reason why they want this Bill. I notice the Minister posing and sighing as though he were a bit tired of the arguments. He has the opportunity later on to answer them. It might be a better idea, even if the arguments are not valid, if the Minister of Agriculture had a pencil in his hand to take notes so that he would be prepared to answer the arguments that are not even valid, because he is responsible. His job is to safeguard the public purse.
The Minister has no right to come to this House to ask for subsidies under Bills of this kind unless he can justify the payment of those subsidies in the proper way. He can sigh and pose as much as he likes, but he ought to be made to answer the questions that have been asked. The real reason for the Bill is that it is the price we have to pay for the failure of the Government to resolve the Icelandic problem. That is private enterprise. Here, we are giving to private enterprise of a very highly organised kind a subsidy of £3 million. If the Government, which represent private enterprise, have got private enterprise into a difficulty because of their inability to negotiate with the Icelandic Government, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot have private enterprise and Government subsidies. We should recognise that it is no longer private enterprise. It is the constant reiteration of the demand of industry for Government "lolly".
If the Government wish to give subsidies of this kind to deep sea water vessels, some of the money should be used to improve conditions in the industry. If they are concerned about the fishing industry, they should at least demand from the trawler owners that the men who serve in the ships should get a better deal. The men in the ships work an 18-hour day by agreement between the


trawler owners and the unions. The owners are the people to whom we are to give a subsidy, yet the best that they can do for the trawlermen, the hands on the ship, is to agree to an 18-hour day. It has been said that this has been determined by the exigencies under which the ships are fishing. If there were 26 hours in the day, the trawler owners would want the men to work for 26 hours. That is my experience of them.
The difference between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and myself is that I have been engaged in fishing and I know something about the industry. It is about time that we had a Minister who knew something about the fishing industry. If we did, we would not be wasting public money in the way that we are wasting it now. It is a tragedy that we have a Minister who knows so little about the fishing industry and who has the effrontery to bring in a Bill of this kind to give £3 million subsidy to a section of the industry which does not need it, which is making fabulous profits, which is organised on the basis of a virtual monopoly and which should be the last industry to ask the Government for subsidies. I oppose the Bill.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: What the Secretary of State said in describing the Bill as a holding Measure was accurate except that it goes a little further. It has been said that it provides a subsidy to the distant water fleet, or at least there is provision for so doing. To that extent, it is a departure from anything that we have had so far. I said that on Second Reading, but I am bound to say that neither myself nor any of my hon. Friends from Scotland regard the Bill as a solution to our difficulties or to the shipbuilding problems. The Bill can help only the smaller fishing villages and shipbuilding yards on the coast in the North of Scotland. They are grateful for what work they can get. If it can be done in this way, we are grateful for it.
The decision concerning the distant water fleet is quite a different matter. Let it be clearly understood that the Icelandic Agreement was not made with any great cheer on the part of anybody in this country, but it was approved at the end of the day by the workers,

represented by the Transport and General Workers' Union, as the best which could be obtained. As a consequence, a considerable part of our fishing grounds will be lost to us and it will be up to the industry to replace it either by new forms of fishing or by finding new grounds to fish. Certainly, we hope that the subsidy that will be paid will be used for this purpose.
I do not intend to go over the argument I used some weeks—nearly months—ago, because the Bill has been going on since January. I said then that I hoped that as a result of it those engaged in the fishing industry—I am talking of the men who man the trawlers—would also get some of the benefits that might flow from the Bill. I have always said so. Just as their physical conditions have improved on all forms of trawling, I would hope that the monetary rewards would also be greater. The Bill holds the position as it is for the middle and near water fleets, who are undergoing difficult times. It makes possible the extension for the distant water fleet.
The Bill is truly a holding Measure. Certainly, those of us on this side and, I am sure, hon. Members opposite, hope that it will not be long before we have proposals before us to discuss the Fleck Report and all its implications and the results deriving from it. Then, we will be able to decide the shape of our fishing fleet. Only when we have done that will we be able to make the decisions which will determine not only the size of the fleet but the conditions of those who have the hazardous job of sailing these vessels.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I want to get some assurances from the Minister about the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act. It is assumed that the vessels which we are discussing—those over 140 ft.—will operate in distant waters all the time. I only hope that that is correct. It is not necessarily true, although we are assuming it. The voyages as described in the Bill can be of any kind to any area.
What some of us are anxious about is that we may find ourselves in the difficult position, to say the least, of subsidising the operations of vessels which operate in certain areas where we are most


anxious to ensure that the existing stocks of fish in the near and inshore waters are properly conserved. Conservation of fish is one of the most important problems before the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and before the nation. We know that areas as extensive as the North Sea can be, and have been, over-fished. How much more easily and more dangerously can we deplete smaller areas like the Moray Firth, the Minch and areas of that kind?
We know that there has been over-fishing in those areas. There is nothing to prevent the subsidised operations of the larger vessels from clashing with accepted national policy in respect of the conservation of fish in the nearer waters. I doubt whether there is any provision in the Bill to guarantee that the vessels will not operate in the quite near waters which already are heavily over-fished. We may, therefore, find ourselves subsidising this class of vessel and, at the same time, paying for a fishery protection service which the operations of the subsidised vessels will defeat. It is a strange thing, but that can happen. I am extremely concerned about the position of the nearer waters and the inshore waters.
We have had all this out in past years and we have a position in which on the one hand we have a fishery protection service paid for by the taxpayers and on the other the trawler fleets coming in and fishing illegally in the supposedly protected waters within the limits. The need for the Bill was created by the Icelandic dispute and the situation around Iceland. As these vessels are being excluded from a wider area of Icelandic waters and the fisheries there, they are tempted to fall back on other areas for their fishing operations, with the result that other areas may well be exposed from time to time to the depredations of vessels driven out of the old Icelandic zone and later out of the 6–12 mile zone as well. Therefore, they may well be forced once again from time to time into the inshore fishermen's area and into the nearer waters which are already so seriously over-fished and depleted.
We must be sure that in subsidising the wealthier and more powerful sections of the fishing industry we are not jeopardising the weaker sections of the

same industry. I doubt whether we are providing adequate protection even now for the inshore fisheries. If we add the catching capacities of even occasional raids by the bigger subsidised vessels on inshore fisheries, how much less must become the provisions that we are making today against the illegal trawlers.
We are making provisions for the Faroes. We recognise their special need for an extension of their limits and we would bar the ships which we are here subsidising from fishing in a wider area round the Faroes than the fisheries round our own country. We have been forced to recognise the special claims of almost every area except the areas where our own inshore fishermen are compelled to make a living. This is an extremely anomalous situation about which we should think most carefully in putting these subsidies into operation.
I hope that the Minister will constantly have the closest regard to the protection of our own inshore fisheries and, indeed, the nearer waters which are so heavily over-fished and depleted already. Arising out of the international dispute which was so ineptly handled we have the Icelandic claim to have special provision made for the only industry on which Iceland must continue to depend for her survival. There are extended fishery limits around Iceland and we now have a situation in which these subsidised vessels will be forced back in certain conditions into places where one would want them least of all to fish.
This question of conservation is extremely important, and the operation of the Bill will raise new problems in various fishery areas. I should hate to see us subsidising an increased catching power to do more over-fishing in areas which are already over-fished and for the protection of which we are providing further money out of the public purse. It may well be that we shall have to extend the fishery protection service even further in respect of the provisions of new vessels under this Bill.
I hope, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), that the Minister will have the closest regard also to the conditions in which the men will live and work on these vessels, because, after all, we are assuming a special responsibility for them. We have a right to lay down


stricter conditions in relation not only to manning but living and working conditions once we put public money as a subvention into this section of the industry.
I hope that the Minister will more and more, in the years to come, give his close attention, with the trade unions and the employers concerned, to this problem of the working and living conditions on board these vessels. They are extremely important in many ways, not only in respect of the present personnel but also from the point of view of attracting the best type of workers into the industry. That is also extremely important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West also referred to the fact that while there is a limit of £3 million at any one moment, there is no limit, so far as we are aware, to what any one firm—or, nowadays, one syndicate—can enjoy in the way of an operational subsidy under the Bill. That is another thing to which the Minister and the House will have to pay close attention. Every application will have to be scrutinised with the greatest care to make sure that we do not have concentrations of interests grabbing the greatest possible amount out of the total sum of £3 million.
My hon. Friend was perfectly right in what he said about that aspect. The danger is that the more powerful firms are the ones most likely to be able to launch out with the assistance of the new operational subsidies, and the likely result will be that some of the smaller firms will go under. We do not want to see that happen, but the greater the financial concentration, with all its consequences, the greater the destruction is likely to be of the smaller firms around the smaller ports. If there is anything which this House should be concerned about, it is the avoidance of the destruction of the fishing population. We must also see that there is a proper distribution of that population around our coasts and islands.
Whether from the point of view of recruiting for the Royal Navy, the Merchant Navy or the fishing fleets, it is vital that the greatest possible number of the right type of young person should be attracted into the industry and encouraged to learn from the shore outwards—the Secretary of State knows

what I mean—from their local foreshore to deep sea fishing.
The area that I represent has been a centre for seamen since long before the Vikings took over the Western Isles. The people of the Western Isles have had a proud association not only with our fishing fleets and the Merchant Navy but with the Royal Navy. Before the last war they recruited about one quarter of the Royal Naval Reserve. We want to see a continuance of that association in opportunities for training for seamen and fishermen—men with the lore of the sea, who have a pride in the fishing industry and in seamanship.
We want to conserve the smaller ports. We are anxious that there shall not, as a side effect of the Bill through the allocation of subsidies, be too great a concentration of the industry in three or four major ports. To a large extent that has already happened, but we still have to try to rescue what is left for the smaller building areas and the smaller fishing ports.
That takes me back to my first point—the importance of making sure that the purposes of the Bill, which are acceptable to many hon. Members on this side of the House as well as to hon. Members opposite, while assisting one section of the industry do not adversely affect the interests of others who are less able to help themselves and who even now are suffering from the depredations of the bigger interests in the industry.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I want to refer to the effect of the subsidy on the herring industry in particular. I am concerned with the idea that the fish meal and oil subsidy is to be taken off. That is relevant to our discussion of the Bill, because we must ensure that money paid into the industry is exploited as effectively as possible. If the fish meal and oil subsidy is taken off, there will be a serious psychological effect on the industry.
The herring industry is an industry in which large surpluses are caught at a very few times of the year, and if the surpluses are completely wasted there will be sad disappointment in an industry in which it is already difficult to get crews. There is only one way in which


those surpluses can be used effectively and that is by storage, and particularly cold storage, for curing and other processing in the slack months. That is something which will have to be undertaken in great bulk and which will be extremely expensive.
At the moment, we are spending large sums on subsidies for the production side of the industry, but it is little good to increase the rate of production if marketing policy is not also improved so that the direction as well as the amount of our financial assistance is put right. One of our skippers said to me the other day—

Mr. Frederick Willey: rose—

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: —that the only answer he could give in this context was—

Mr. Willey: On a point of order. I raise this as a point of order because I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) is under some misapprehension. Am I right in assuming that the debate can continue after ten o'clock if the House agrees to the Motion which the Government have put down?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: My understanding is that at ten o'clock a Motion will be moved to suspend the Rule for the purpose of continuing our business.

Mr. George Brown: Further to that point of order. Should not the hon. Member give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who wished to ask him a question? Would not that be in accordance with the traditions of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Whether an hon. Member chooses to give way is nothing to do with me.

Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Member give way to me?

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I wish to conclude my speech.

Mr. Brown: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) must know the rules of the House and that

if the hon. Member in possession of the Floor does not give way no other hon. Member may rise to speak.

Mr. Brown: On a point of order. I am well aware of that and I take good note of it. If the hon. Member persists in making absurd statements, such as that the only way in which to use a surplus is to put it into storage, should he not give way so that my hon. Friend can point out how absurd it is?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I merely want to conclude by saying that although there is a great deal to be said for a policy which improves fishing facilities in the North of Scotland—[Interruption.]

Mr. Charles Doughty: On a point of order. Is it in order for a right hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench, while still seated, to interrupt my hon. Friend?

Mr. Brown: Since the hon. Member will not give way, and I am not allowed to interrupt him while standing up, how else can I interrupt him when he is talking nonsense?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Let us get on with the debate in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I merely want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that they should pay more attention to storage facilities, especially to the storage and handling of fish—

Mr. Willey: On a point of order. We are now on the Third Reading of the Bill. Will you indicate to the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which part of the Bill contains any provision relating to storage and such matters? The hon. Member has confined his speech to that point. I cannot find any provision dealing with storage or shore facilities.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That point of order is not without justification. I hope that the hon. Member will confine himself to the Bill. In any case, he has now finished.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I had a certain amount of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) said about stopping the oil and


meal subsidy, but there is no reference to that in the Bill, although it was mentioned in the Fleck Committee's Report, and I wondered how the hon. Member managed to remain in order when talking about that. Nevertheless, I agree with him about the unfortunate consequences that might flow to Scotland from an acceptance of this recommendation.
I want to stress the importance of the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). We have been adducing these arguments during all the proceedings on the Bill. As I understood him, my hon. Friend was concerned that the subsidy arrangements made in the Bill should not result in the smaller fishermen having to suffer as opposed to the larger groups, and there is a great danger of this. We have stressed this danger throughout all the proceedings on the Bill. It is especially dangerous for Scotland.
The danger arises because, for the first time, the Bill extends the subsidies to the distant water fleet. We are now paying subsidies to a formerly very prosperous and powerful section of the industry. I still think that there is a considerable amount to be said for the minority Report of Mr. George Middleton, who was a member of the Fleck Committee, in which he said that we ought to consider

this matter with very great care indeed before we begin to hand out large sums of public money to companies that are very very well off, some of which have extensive interests ashore, which make them financially powerful interests. I am sorry if hon. Members opposite are annoyed, but I consider the interests of the fishing industry in Scotland to be more important than the convenience of the Minister, or even of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

The importance of the Bill arises from the fact that the Fleck Committee reported that the fishing industry should not expand; indeed, that it should probably slightly contract. In Scotland, this is already happening. We have the decision of the White Fish Authority concerning the standstill arrangement in respect of trawler fleets and the seine net fleets. If, precisely at the moment that we apply this principle, we begin to subsidise the most powerful section of the industry—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Soames.]

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 107.

Division No. 125.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Coulson, J. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Aitken, W. T.
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hay, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Cunningham, Knox
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Barlow, Sir John
Curran, Charles
Hendry, Forbes


Barter, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Batsford, Brian
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Deedes, W. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
de Ferranti, Basil
Hobson, John


Berkeley, Humphry
Doughty, Charles
Hocking, Philip N.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
du Cann, Edward
Holland, Philip


Bingham, R. M.
Duncan, Sir James
Hollingworth, John


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Eden, John
Hopkins, Alan


Bishop, F. P.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-Upcon-Tyne, N.)
Hughes-Young, Michael


Box, Donald
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brooman-White, R.
Finlay, Graeme
Iremonger, T. L.


Bryan, Paul
Fisher, Nigel
Jackson, John


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
James, David


Bullard, Denys
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gammans, Lady
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Car[...]sle)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Godber, J. B.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Channon, H. P. G.
Goodhart, Philip
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Goodhew, Victor
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gower, Raymond
Kershaw, Anthony


Cooper, A. E.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Kitson, Timothy


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Green, Alan
Lambton, Viscount


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Langford-Holt. J.


Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Leavey, J. A.


Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Leburn, Gilmour




Lilley, F. J. P.
Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Loveys, Walter H.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pott, Percival
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


MacArthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


McLaren, Martin
Prior, J. M. L.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maddan, Martin
Pym, Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maitland, Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Ramsden, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rawlinson, Peter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marten, Nell
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Walder, David


Matthews, George (Meriden)
Rees, Hugh
Walker, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Renton, David
Ward, Dame Irene


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Watts, James


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Roots, William
Webster, David


Mills, Stratton
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott-Hopkins, James
Whitelaw, William


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shaw, M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nabarro, Gerald
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Noble, Michael
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Speir, Robert
Woodnutt, Mark


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Woollam, John


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Worsley, Marcus


Partridge, E.
Talbot, John E.



Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peel, John
Teeling, William
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Chichester Clark.




NOES


Awbery, Stan
Hayman, F. H.
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Probert, Arthur


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Randall, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. V.
Rankin, John


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hoy, James H.
Ross, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Short, Edward


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collick, Percy
Jeger, George
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, J. Idwat (Wrexham)
Small, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, Dr. Horace
Steele, Thomas


Deer, George
Lawson, George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sylvester, George


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dempsey, James
Logan, David
Taylor, John (West Lothlan)


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McCann, John
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, James
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, A. C.
Warbey, William


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Courlay, Harry
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, Charles
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. C. Howell and Mr. Redhead.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pentland, Norman

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Willis: When we were interrupted I was explaining to the House why Scottish Members were very much concerned about the manner in which the grants under the Bill were to be distributed, and I was supporting the plea, made in a very eloquent manner by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles, that great care should be taken not to strengthen the powerful units in the industry at the expense of the smaller ones, particularly the inshore fishing fleets.
During the Second Reading debate I explained at length why I feared that this might happen. Precisely at the moment when we are extending the grants to the distant water fleet we have the Fleck Committee making certain recommendations which will limit the size of the fleet. We have also lost extensive fishing grounds as a result of the Icelandic Treaty. These two facts suggest that the inshore and near water fleet is seriously threatened by powerful pressures and, as a result, the inshore fleet, in particular, may suffer considerable damage.
This is a serious prospect for Scotland, where 50 per cent. of the catches are landed by the inshore fishing fleet. We cannot afford any diminution in the size of these fleets or any loss of employment in the small ports from which the boats sail. During the Committee stage of the Bill we had a debate on Clause 2 about the possible effect of certain actions already taken by the White Fish Authority in limiting the grants and assistance to the seine net fleet. As a result of certain steps which have been taken recently, the fleet will be kept at its present size, more or less, and this creates a serious position in the ports and among those employed in the boat building industry.
These things cause great concern, because year after year we have been faced with the problem of fishing villages which are dying. One can go round the coasts of Scotland and see these villages where there is practically no fishing

carried on. We have suffered because of a drift of the population from these villages into the central parts of Scotland and into England. We cannot afford to allow this process to continue. As the Joint Under-Secretary of State will know, in the Highlands we have lost about 10,000 members of the population during the past ten years and every year we lose part of the population which is not replaced. The hon. Gentleman also knows what happens in these small fishing villages, which is similar to what happens in the smaller Scottish burghs.
Professor Cairncross produced a report on the problem of the decaying village and the small town which lost its industry, or where industry did not expand and there was no employment for the children. The young people left the area as a result, the population aged and people lost their employment. This has happened in a number of fishing villages in Scotland already. We cannot afford to see that process go on. We cannot afford that if we have any consideration at all for the future development of Scotland.
I seriously reinforce the pleas made by my hon. Friends. This is a serious matter for us. We want to keep these fleets in being. We do not want to see any diminution in their size, but they are now challenged by this powerful and serious threat. Unless the Government make up their minds quickly on the size and shape of the fleet and determine the part which Scotland is to play—which must not be smaller than it is playing at present—we shall be facing very serious consequences in the areas about which I have spoken. I wanted to stress that again, because it is a matter of great concern to all Scottish hon. Members.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has supported the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). They made the same point, and I may be able to reply to them first about the threat they inferred could arise to the middle and near water fleets by virtue of an operational subsidy being paid to the distant water fleets. I can assure the hon. Members that they need have no fears on this count at all.
The distant water fleet is no happier than anyone in this House about the situation which has arisen whereby it is necessary for a subsidy to be paid to it. It has always been a source of great pride to it that of all the sections of the fishing fleet it has not had to call on the Government for a subsidy. It is no fault of that section that it is in the position of needing this subsidy. The situation has arisen by virtue of movement of international forces, extending the territorial limits for twelve miles, and our endeavouring to stabilise the long-term position, which is the most important of all factors to the distant water fleet.
We have had to do that in making arrangements and agreements with Norway and Iceland in order to give up the benefits in the short period of some of the traditional fishing grounds of the distant water fleet. We are putting ourselves in a position to be able to pay this subsidy to indemnify those in the fleet for this considerable loss which will fall upon them quite rapidly both in Norway waters, where they will have to move from four to six miles out and in Icelandic waters the same, losing much of the water in which they could fish, from six to twelve miles.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member made a long speech and I shall come to the point he made when I shall gladly give way to him.
This distant water fleet will not, as the hon. Member for Western Isles feared, be "pinching" the water of the near water fleet because these vessels are not equipped for that. They are equipped for travelling long distances to fish. I do not think the hon. Member need fear that the traditional waters of the small fishing vessels which ply over comparatively small distances will be interfered with by the trawlers, especially as they get bigger—as undoubtedly they will—with freezing plants in them and so on.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I am obliged for the reassurance, which I should like to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a position to reinforce, but we were not thinking purely of the inshore fishermen. We were thinking also of the overfished and depleted near and middle waters.

Mr. Soames: These vessels will be fishing off Iceland, in the Barents Sea, and, to some extent, off the Faroes. They will seek to find new fishing grounds in other distant waters. That is what there will be a good deal of concentration of thought upon in the next few months. They will not be setting their sights on the near or middle waters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) referred to the oil and meal subsidy. He made his point with great energy and determination, in spite of considerable provocation from the Front Bench opposite. I must tell him that the oil and meal subsidy does not form part of the Bill. I can set his mind at rest by telling him that anything about which he had anxiety is not in any way affected by the provisions of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) said that he opposed the Bill because he objected on principle to the payment of subsidy to the distant water fleet. He said that he thought it was doing splendidly and there was no need to give it a subsidy. We are putting ourselves in a position to be able to pay the subsidy to the fleet. This is a holding Measure, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) said, to tide us over a period of time. The Bill will last only until April, 1963.
What we are faced with is the immediate situation. Up to this year the distant water fleet had access to a good deal of water to which from this year onwards it will not have access. The fishermen used to be able to draw fish from this water. They will not be able to do so now. We think that it is fair and right that we should put ourselves in the position of being able to pay them a subsidy. This was their legal right. It has been taken away from them by virtue of a bilateral agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Iceland. We think we should put ourselves in the position of being able to pay this operating subsidy.
Some hon. Members—including, I think, the hon. Members for Gloucestershire, West and Edinburgh, Leith—said that the subsidy should be made available to skippers and crews and not only to owners of ships.

Mr. Loughlin: I did not say that.

Mr. Soames: I think the hon. Member for Leith did.

Mr. Hoy: No. What I said was this. If conditions are to be improved, those who man the trawlers are as much entitled to a part of the improvement as those who own them. That is what I suggested.

Mr. Soames: That is very much better put than the way in which I tried to put the words into the hon. Gentleman's mouth. That is what happens with the subsidy at present paid to the middle and near water fleets. As we envisage it at present—the Bill does not do this; this will come later through the Order—the operating subsidy to be paid to the distant water fleet will be on the same basis as that paid to the near and middle water fleets.

Mr. Loughlin: I am very interested in the argument the Minister is now advancing. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and I argued that subsidies could be used for improving the working conditions of the people in the industry. Does that happen at present, except for that section of the cost of the ship where subsidy is involved, which affects the crew's poundage? Will the Minister develop his argument that at present the subsidy paid in respect of near and middle water vessels results in benefit to the crews, except for that portion which is or might be included in the lowering of the ship's costs and which reflects itself in the crew's poundage?

Mr. Soames: No. This has nothing to do with the Bill. It is not in the Bill. It is certainly not a Third Reading point. I was merely meeting the point made in the debate that we should endeavour to ensure that the subsidy is paid in such a way as to bring about what the hon. Gentleman was asking for.

Mr. Willey: I appreciate that the Minister is taking powers to give subsidy assistance to the distant water fleet because that fleet is prejudiced by what

has happened in Icelandic and other waters, but does he face up to what he is doing? Against whom is the distant water fleet prejudiced? If it is prejudiced against other fishing fleets, I would say to the Government that they have given concessions to the Norwegians, for instance, in regard to frozen fillets. It seems odd to give a concession to Norwegians and then to ask the British taxpayer to give a subsidy to redress that.
On the other hand, if the distant water fleet is prejudiced against the other sections of the fleet, those sections are already subsidised and, again, it seems odd to adjust the subsidy in the fleet by giving an additional subsidy to part of the fleet that is admittedly badly hit by what has recently happened in fishing waters.

Mr. Soames: No, the distant water fleet is not prejudiced, as we see it, against anyone, be it other sections of the fleet or the Norwegians. It is merely that, in future, as the result of the agreement made between Governments, the distant water fleet will not have access to certain very valuable waters where it could get heavy catches.
In general, this Bill, as has been said more than once during its passage through the House, is a holding Measure. It will not be one of the great fishing industry Acts of Parliament, but in the next few years it will play a valuable part in holding the situation and giving the loans and grants on which we have made an Order. In addition, this ability to pay an operating subsidy to the distant water fleet will give valuable assistance of a temporary nature to the fishing fleet, while we are studying the subject, and bringing forward Measures to implement part, at least, of the Fleck Report, in an endeavour to put the fleet in a position in which it may continue to render great service to the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HYDE PARK (UNDERGROUND PARKING) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill be adjourned.
I so move in order to ascertain the intentions of the Government about the business now before us. We have this immediate Report stage, with an Amendment of great importance and great length which will need a very great deal of consideration, and there are other aspects of this Bill that we have to discuss after that. There are no fewer than five other Orders on the Paper, it is now almost half-past ten, and we want to know whether the Government intend to press on with all this business.
We cannot hurry over the very important hurdle immediately ahead of us. This is a very considerable and important Bill which affects many people and raises important principles—particularly the Amendment about the disposal of the money that is to come in. We do not think that it would be right to embark even on this at this late hour, particularly as this very day the Government have decided to send us away earlier than they should and, in order to do that, have put this enormous set of Orders of the Day before us.
I hope that someone is in a position to tell us not only about the intentions on this next Order but the general intentions of the Government. I see that the Patronage Secretary is there; he has recently created the precedent of addressing us at some length. I do not know whether there is anyone else on the Treasury Bench at the moment who can tell us the Government's general intentions, but if we had to settle down to very long proceedings we should like to know now. I think that hon. Members opposite would also like to know what lies ahead of them tonight. Therefore, I am moving this Motion in order that we can get from someone or other on the Government Front Bench some idea of what the Government propose.

Indeed, I would speak a little longer if it were possible to get the Leader of the House here while I am on my feet, because I am not sure whether I agree with the precedent which the Chief Patronage Secretary set the other night when he addressed us; it tends to raise the temperature of the House.
10.30 p.m.
None the less, if there is no one better than he, we would rather have him speak than no one at all, because the Minister of Transport, who is here, is not really capable of telling us the intentions of the Government after we have disposed of the Bill which is immediately before us. He could, of course, tell us whether he intends to press on with the whole of that Order, which will take a considerable time, for, as he realises, points of very great importance are raised in our proposed new Schedule, and they will have to be exhaustively canvassed and discussed—unless, of course, the Government were to accept the Schedule straight away. It would be interesting to know whether they propose to do that. If they do not, this is going to be a rather long and exhaustive, if not exhausting, procedure.
I hope that someone will answer the points that I am raising. I do not know whether the Chief Patronage Secretary would be prepared to do so. I do not consider that any other Minister now on the Front Bench is in a position to tell us what are the intentions of the Government concerning the multiplicity of matters which still have to be dealt with.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: If I may say a word or two in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), we have on the Order Paper a new Schedule which is not only somewhat long—I think necessarily long—but which also raises a general question about Government contracts which we regard as a matter of considerable importance. It raises the question in a very peculiar case where the right hon. Gentleman has to come to the House to get authority for what he proposes to do inside a Royal Park.
This is not all that we desire to discuss. There never has been a Money Resolution in connection with this Bill. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of


Transport on Second Reading and then again in Committee what was going to happen about the disposal of the funds which he would receive in connection with this Bill, and at long last this morning, or perhaps it was yesterday, I had a written reply from the right hon. Gentleman which seems to me possibly incorrect and certainly unsatisfactory. I desire to raise, not on the Report stage but as an objection to the Third Reading of the Bill, with which we are also asked to deal tonight, this rather weighty question of the disposal of Government funds, the control of Parliament over them and the need for Money Resolutions.
We have just been considering the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill where there were Money Resolutions incorrectly drawn in the first instance, and no one has ever disputed that in that case there was a need for them. The right hon. Gentleman may or may not have discovered a method of avoiding a Money Resolution, but, if he has, I think the circumstances in which it can be used require careful examination and raise a really important point of Parliamentary control over Ministerial expenditure. I see no hope in the circumstances, however concisely I try to put these matters, of getting a short debate; nor, indeed, do I think it would be right that we should have merely a short debate on matters of this kind.
I may add that since this Bill was given a Second Reading the circumstances have changed considerably. The Minister in Committee made statements which I am not going into now, but which were quite at variance with what his intentions appeared to be on the Second Reading of the Bill. In consequence, the House as a whole has not had the opportunity of considering what the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to do.
For that reason I would suggest that in the public interest it is advisable that this matter should be properly discussed, discussed with a reasonably large attendance of Members, and discussed at an hour of the night when we shall not feel hurried, certainly at an hour when we do not have afterwards quite a number of other Measures—as appears from the Paper to be the case tonight. I hope, therefore, that the Government will say to us that they recognise the realities of the situation and that they are not going to

oblige us to deal with matters of this importance at this hour of the night, with other Bills following.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to answer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). The Government would wish on this occasion—they have discussed this through the usual channels—

Mr. George Brown: No.

Mr. Marples: Discussions have taken place through the usual channels. The Government wish to take the Report and Third Reading of this Bill and miss Order No. 5, Patents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees) Bill [Lords], and Order No. 6, Human Tissue Bill. They thought the Human Tissue Bill could perhaps be taken on another day, and Order No. 7, Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Bill, on another day, and Order No. 8, Local Authorities (Expenditure on Special Purposes) (Scotland) Bill, another day. They would like to take tonight Order No. 9, Report of the Committee on the Money Resolution for the Housing Bill. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the House to consider tonight this Bill and that other Order of the Day in view of the statement I have made and the fact there were discussions, I think, through the usual channels. The Leader of the House at Question Time made it clear that we could expect reasonable pro-gross with these matters I have mentioned.

Mr. G. Brown: I am sorry, but this is coming very near to sharp practice. Earlier in the day we had a discussion with the Leader of the House. I must say we have now had half an hour for the Patronage Secretary, if he chose, to bring the Leader of the House here. Obviously, he does not choose to bring him in, which is quite interesting in view of what the Minister of Transport has just said. We had discussion earlier in the day with the Leader of the House in open House, open to everybody here, and the Leader of the House said that the intentions were to obtain the Order of the Day which has just been obtained,


namely, the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill, and such other progress as it was reasonable to make; and that is all he said. The Patronage Secretary is mumbling. Would he like to speak? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Yes, but when he speaks he does not mumble but speaks out loud.
What has happened? The Patronage Secretary has instigated the Minister of Transport, who knows nothing about these things, to say things which the Leader of the House earlier this day would not say and which the Leader of the House would not say if he were here now. There has not been discussion through the usual channels about which orders to take. The Leader of the House did not earlier this day indicate that the Government wanted Orders 2, 3, 4 and 9 and were not disposed to take Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8. This is something which the Patronage Secretary is at the moment using the Minister of Transport to propose, who, if he wishes to build a place for himself—

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Underground.

Mr. Brown: —may, perhaps, resist. There is no particular future in that for Edgar Bergen's dummy—which is what he is being at this moment. This is something which the Patronage Secretary has been putting into the ear of the Minister of Transport. That is why the Leader of the House is not being brought in now, because he made it plain that we would take the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill and then see where we were.
I hope the Minister of Transport firmly understands that what he has just said was not so. There has been no discussion between the usual channels about the Orders to be taken. We see no reason why we should embark on this Order. The Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill is an Order which, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, raises considerable issues. It raises, as is quite likely with the right hon. Gentleman, some novel issues. It must be extremely difficult for the right hon. Gentleman both to learn that and to have continual mumbling from the Patronage Secretary in his ear. One of us should give way to the other. It would be better if the Patronage Secre-

tary made a speech direct from his own mouth to the microphone instead of via the ear of the Minister of Transport, who must be finding it awfully difficult.
The Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill raises some novel issues. I gather that one of the novel issues is the absence of a Money Resolution. One of the novel issues is the arrangements for dealing with the finances involved. I hope that the departure of the Patronage Secretary means that he is going to find the Leader of the House, because it must be apparent even to him that what we are lacking is the presence of the Leader of the House.
It seems to us on this side that we must have a lead from a source much higher than the Minister of Transport. I am making no reflection on the right hon. Gentleman's competence at his own job, althought at other moments there is plenty to be said about that. His competence to lead the House from the position that he now occupies is a little in doubt. What we need is a lead from a source higher than the Minister of Transport about the intentions of the Government They have nothing to grumble about. We took until half-past six today to debate whether we should adjourn for the Easter Recess, a Motion the discussion of which by tradition, time honoured, is something that the House jealously guards.
At half-past six, we facilitated, although we were under no obligation to do so, the Government in getting their business. They did not have to closure the debate. They got the end of that debate at half-past six in orderly fashion with us on these benches ending it with many of my hon. Friends still rising. With all the intervening Divisions, that meant that we did not get on to the White Fishing and Herring Industries Bill until half-past seven. Now, the Government have got that Bill between half-past seven and half-past ten. They have nothing to grumble about. Had we been setting out to obstruct, had we even been setting out to help with constructive speeches, they would have been on it a long time yet. But there was none of that.
The Government got that Bill by half-past ten. They have nothing to grumble about. The sensible thing for the Government now to do, especially as


the night shift is on down there below the Gangway on the Government side, which means that we will get no intelligent discussion from below the Gangway on the Government side, is surely to adjourn and let us come back to these Bills in due course when the House is in good form and we are in the full time of day.
10.45 p.m.
I am an ex-Minister of Works. The present Minister of Works is not here at a time when we are going to make a major intrusion into one of the Royal Parks which I regarded very jealously when I was Minister of Works and which it is the present Minister's job to regard very jealously today. The present Minister of Transport is to be permitted to cut a great swathe into a great national park which is the pride not only of Londoners but of the world. Everybody goes to Hyde Park.
People judge London by Hyde Park. [Laughter.] There is a great difference between hon. Members opposite and myself. The hour of the day at which they know Hyde Park and the business by which they know Hyde Park is quite different from mine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Because of the hour of the day at which I know Hyde Park and the purposes for which I know Hyde Park it is a matter of great pride to me, but hon. and right hon. Members opposite have to think twice about this because there have been some rather peculiar cases. They did not involve anybody on this side of the House. [Interruption.] I did not start this. It was started on that side of the House. The Minister of Works ought to be here to defend the park and to speak, if need be, for the park and for its meaning to Londoners, but he is not here.
I repeat that there are very great purposes in the Bill. It really involves a considerable business. If there are any grounds for moving the adjournment of the House they are these two points—that we have here neither the Leader of the House with whom this matter had been discussed earlier today, nor the Minister of Works who has charge of the park which is to be interfered with by the Bill. [Interruption.] Does the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) wish to raise a point of order?

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: All I was saying was that we have had that four times and it is tedious repetition.

Mr. Brown: That must be a reflection on the Chair if it was meant seriously.

Mr. Speaker: I was wondering about it. I thought that we were getting near the point.

Mr. Brown: There is nothing tedious about what I am saying. It is a point that has to be made again and again from this side of the House because it is not made from the opposite side.
We are being badly treated. We have the Minister of Transport offering us an explanation which in the patent knowledge of hon. Members who were here earlier is not true. Neither of the Ministers who could help us in this matter is present. We lack the one Minister who is appointed and is paid to care for our interests. I hope and trust that the House will not proceed with discussions of the Bill in the light of the flippant, frivolous and quite contemptuous way in which the Government Front Bench is treating us. My right hon. Friend has sought to move his Motion, and I hope that my hon. Friends will support him both in their words and, if need be, with their votes. It would be quite improper to proceed with the discussion of the Bill in the light of the existing situation on the Government Front Bench and the way in which they are treating us.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I hope that we shall hear something a little more accommodating from the Government soon. I can well understand why the Leader of the House is not here. I presume that he has been over-ruled in this matter by the Patronage Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman who leads the House has more experience of Parliamentary matters, and I cannot imagine that he would wish to have this sort of foolishness. I should have thought that the Government would learn sense at some time. They have had a roughish Session, but just when things have seemed to be quietening down and we were prepared to co-operate with them, giving them the White Fish Bill at a reasonable hour, they proceed to act in this way, on the very day on which they have insisted—


against the will and the vote of the Opposition—in adjourning the House for a number of days during which many Motions, considered by hon. Members on both sides to be of considerable importance, could have been discussed. In spite of insisting on adjourning the House they now ask us to consider a Bill of this importance at this time of night.
The Bill involves a very formidable breach of a very ancient and honoured tradition. There is no older possession of the people of this country than Hyde Park, which was taken into the hands of the Crown on behalf of the people by King Edward the Confessor during the days when it was Abbey land, and since then it has been the uninterrupted property of the people. Only once has the freedom of that park to Londoners been threatened, and that was in the days of Cromwell the Usurper—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but he and the House will appreciate my difficulties. If we get down to a discussion of the Bill at some stage all these matters will be very relevant and interesting, but I feel myself limited by the terms of the Motion now before the House, and Cromwellian history does not easily fit the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is correct: we are now approaching 11 o'clock. We have had a full and busy day, and the Government are proposing that we now go on to consider this Measure. My argument is that this is not the sort of triviality which can be got through without discussion at a late hour.
This is a highly important matter involving principles which the House should consider when it is fresh. The only point which I was making about the Cromwellian history of Hyde Park was simply that this was the only occasion upon which it passed out of the free use of the people, and it was then sought by a sordid fellow who bought it to charge us sixpence for a carriage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With due respect to him, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is persisting on a line which I have indicated to him I do not think appropriate. I can

understand discussions on principle on Second Reading of the Bill, but the Question now is whether we should defer, or not defer, consideration of the Bill, not amended in Standing Committee.

Mr. Paget: I understand that there are Amendments on the Order Paper to be considered on Report and a Schedule, and I understand that the general question of that Schedule is whether this shall be an enterprise for profit. In that respect I was indicating the views expressed by respectable antiquity of the sordid nature of using this ancient domain of London for private profit. That is the point which I am making, but I will now depart from it and return to the issue before us, which is whether we should proceed on this important matter at this hour.
We are going away for a holiday which apparently the Government think will be time well spent. In those circumstances, what business have they to ask us to deal with this matter tonight? Do they think that they will be successful? What sort of progress will they make when they act in this way, without co-operation and in breach of the understanding given by the Leader of the House? The Leader of the House said, "We want the White Fish Bill, and it is urgent that we get it. When we have done that we will see how we are getting on." We allow him to have that Bill at a reasonable time, we co-operate and help, but he is not here to look at the situation and to implement the implications of his invitation to us. Because we have given him that Bill at a reasonable hour the Government proceed to flout our wishes and to try to force something further upon us.
That sort of conduct does not invite co-operation from any self-respecting Opposition. It is asking for trouble, and if the right hon. Gentleman insists he will get trouble and will still be having trouble at breakfast time; but he will get no progress.

11.0 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: As I see it, the Leader of the House indicated this afternoon that he would consider the situation and see what progress had been made. One wants to be reasonable about this. If we had started the debate on the Hyde


Park (Underground Parking) Bill at 10.30 and gone on till 11.45 some progress would have been made; but as it is, with the speeches that we have had from the other side of the House, no progress has been made.
I would not have risen except to say that I was appalled at the inference to be drawn from what was said by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who is not at the moment in his place. I thought it was a completely unnecessary remark to make over something which was frivolous and not meant at all. I hope that on reflection he will regret having said it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Perhaps I might point out that my right hon. Friend is talking with the Patronage Secretary. Otherwise he would be here to listen to the hon. Member.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I appreciate that. I could not warn the right hon. Gentleman that I was going to refer to the remark that he made.
Listening to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite one would think that they had done us a favour in making progress with the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill. But when I cast my mind back a week or so to what was a billiant performance by the hon. Member for Manchester. Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) in talking about converting the "Queen Mary" into a fish carrier, I begin to wonder whether the Opposition have been so kind in facilitating this business.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Had my hon. Friend not spoken for two and a half hours that night the Government would never have discovered the mistake they had made in the Financial Resolution.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member for Cheetham was not the only one who spoke that night. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) even broke the record.
Speaking as a private Member from this side of the House, I suggest that we could make some progress. I understand the point of view put forward. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have not been too easy in recent months, want to sit up all night, let us sit up all night and get on with it.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that we might be able to make progress if the Leader of the House were here and that we must protest at his continued absenteeism. The right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to be here, and a particular responsibility on occasions such as this. What has happened was not unexpected. It might have been assumed that this matter would be raised, and yet the House is without the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. V. Harvey: One knows that the Leader of the House has other responsibilities. I do not know what my right hon. Friend is doing, but I am perfectly sure that he can fully justify his absence at the moment. The right hon. Member for Belper complained about the Minister of Transport being the only Minister here. After all, we have a Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench to answer this matter, and that should be adequate.

Mr. Willis: It is true that we have the Minister of Transport on the Government Front Bench, but, unfortunately, he is not the expert on proceedings in the House, neither is he an expert on the degree to which the Government want to continue the business tonight in order to get their programme through. The person who knows all about that is the Leader of the House, and, failing his presence, we have to depend upon the Patronage Secretary. Neither is in his place, and so I assume that something must be going on and we may get some information about it later on.
I put it to the Government that the Opposition have been most co-operative today on the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill. A number of my hon. Friends were very anxious to speak on the Bill, particularly on the important implications for Scotland. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) was not present at the time and so he does not realise the importance of the discussions which were going on—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very interesting, but I myself had the misfortune to miss the discussions. However, I have difficulty in relating them to the question of whether or no further consideration of the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill should be adjourned.

Mr. Willis: I am very grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I will try very quickly to relate what I have to say to the Question before the House.
I was trying to point out that the Opposition had been very co-operative, with the result that we had finished the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill by 10.15 or 10.30 p.m., a very respectable hour at which to close the business. Yet at this hour at night we are asked to consider a very lengthy and involved Schedule to a new Bill which introduces new principles and which ought to be discussed fairly thoroughly. Although as a Scottish Member I am not so much concerned with Hyde Park, I have no doubt that what is done in the Bill will become the pattern for what will be done in other Royal Parks in order to help solve the traffic problem. It may well be done in Holyrood Park at Edinburgh, or somewhere else. Therefore before we agree to this innovation, or settle the details, obviously this is a matter to which the House should give fairly close attention. In the proposals that the Government are anxious that we should consider, we are laying down something which is entirely new. This House ought to do that in a sober frame of mind and be prepared to devote time to it at a reasonable hour of the day, not in the middle of the night. What is being done now will be a pattern for the future and may affect not only Hyde Park, but parks in other parts of the country.
In the interests of achieving the best legislation possible, I should have thought that the Government would be prepared to postpone the consideration of this Bill until another day. I cannot see that the traffic problem in London will be affected if there is a delay in the consideration of this Bill, even for another twelve or fourteen days. Goodness knows, the traffic in London has been chaotic enough for years and I cannot see what difference will be made by a delay of fourteen days. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to get on with the scheme as quickly as possible, but surely that does not mean that we should consider this Measure in the middle of the night. I ask the Government once again to think seriously before asking the House to spend what may be a considerable amount of time on this Bill tonight.

Mr. John Diamond: I should hesitate to intervene in such a debate as this were it not for the fact that I am extremely anxious about two things. The first is the honour of the Minister of Transport and the second is the need to make progress with this Bill. The Minister has said that an arrangement was made, to put it shortly, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has said—putting it equally shortly—that an arrangement was not made. So far as my right hon. Friend was allowed within the limits of Parliamentary usage he was bound to be suggesting that the Minister of Transport was mistaken in what he was saying on a point on which one cannot in the normal way make absolutely clear in the Chamber.
Of course, it is understood that the Minister was merely passing on information which had been whispered into his ear, but I think that we ought to have this point cleared up. The only person who can clear it up is the Leader of the House. He is the only person who can say with authority whether or not my right hon. Friend was justified in saying what he has said. It is a very unsatisfactory situation when two right hon. Gentlemen find themselves compelled to disagree about a matter of honour of that kind. If such an arrangement had been made, it would be a considerable surprise to us on this side of the House, because none of us anticipated or wanted such an arrangement. We wanted to get on with the discussion on this Bill.
I know full well that the Minister of Transport has "gone down-hill" very fast indeed—but only when he has a pair of skis beneath him. In normal matters I am sure that his integrity is as great as ever it was and he would not wish to make any statement which he was not absolutely sure was truthful and not misleading.
We cannot possibly let this Motion go until we have been satisfied whether or not an arrangement was made and whether or not anyone is challenging the accuracy and veracity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, whom none of us has ever found to mislead on an important question of this kind. Many of us feel that this is a matter which has to be thoroughly cleared up,


and cleared up now. It would be most unsatisfactory if it were left open over the whole of the Easter Recess with allegations of this kind being made and not capable of being adequately refuted.
Of course, the Patronage Secretary would not wish to intervene himself. The Leader of the House when available is most courteous and anxious to demonstrate his ability to lead the House and not merely to act as a Conservative Minister. I hope that representations will be made to him to clear up this matter and get it out of the way. If one thinks of what the Leader of the House could have had in mind, it is quite inconceivable that it was that we should be going on to consider this Bill at this hour. It is inconceivable that he would make such an arrangement as has been indicated, because it was several hours before consideration of the previous Bill was started when he made the statement. It was very likely that consideration of the previous Bill would have ended two or even three hours earlier than actually happened. He would have in mind that there would be up to two or three hours for that Bill, or, alternatively, that it would finish two or three hours earlier.
Suppose that instead of consideration of that Bill finishing at half-past ten it had finished at half-past seven. Then it would be reasonable that we should get on and do as much business as possible. That, I am sure, is the desire of both sides of the House. That would be in the mind of the Leader of the House when he made the statement. It is most unlikely that he contemplated that discussion on the question of the Easter Recess would go on for so long and that consideration of the other Bill would start at half-past seven. Not only is it clear that there is an unfortunate disagreement between two right hon. Gentlemen as to what in fact was said—and this touches on the honour of the House—but it is perfectly clear that it is inconceivable that the Leader of the House could have had in mind what presumably the Patronage Secretary put into the mouth of the Minister of Transport as being what he had in mind. We should have that cleared up, and cleared up as quickly as possible.
I, as usual, am anxious to get on to discussion. We all have other things to do in whatever capacity we carry on. I am anxious to get on to discussion, but I take a very practical view of these things. I regard as the important time not the time we start to consider a Bill but the time when we finish considering it. I direct my attention always to the best method of completing consideration of a Bill. The Bill we have before us, the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill, is a Bill, which making an assumption one makes with temerity—that the Amendment dealing with the new Schedule is bound to be in order and will be called—will involve lengthy, close and highly technical consideration.
11.15 p.m.
A considerable matter of principle is involved which has already been indicated, and I do not propose to refer to the matter again, because that would be wasting the time of the House. But what has, perhaps, not been made sufficiently clear is that the proposed new Schedule is one dealing with a highly technical matter. It covers 71 lines, each one involving words which have to be carefully considered, because it is setting a precedent which would be affected very much by the difference of opinion prevailing on each side of the House and the different approach of each side of the House to it.
It is not going to be possible for this matter to be considered clearly and quickly unless it is considered at the time of day when we are all fresh and able to consider it. It is as simple as that. Some of us, perhaps, can go on till late in the night. I am sure that the Minister with his professional background will understand these things very well, but I am sure that he would not wish to be the sole representative of his party present. He would naturally wish to be helped by the advice of and the contributions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, realising as he must that this is setting a very important precedent. Therefore, I am sure he would be the last person to wish to deny the help and consideration which hon. and right hon. Members could bring to the Bill, presuming as I do that the Schedule is going to be called and that it is going to be fully discussed.
As I say, the Schedule is a highly technical one and one which could not


be understood by hon. Members unless it were carefully and fully explained in considerable detail. Who is to do that other than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)? Everybody understands that my hon. and learned Friend would be the last person to complain about the amount of work or the burden of work that he has to carry. He has never been known to utter a peek about the amount of work he is called upon to undertake and the help which he gives to hon. Members on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Both sides?"] Yes, because when constructive arguments are put forward they are of benefit to both sides.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not be embarrassed if I say that it is within my knowledge that he has had a most extraordinarily tiring and busy day. Since half-past ten this morning he has been here, speaking in the debate on the Trustee Investments Bill in Committee upstairs and dealing with most highly technical matters with such force of argument and such clarity of exposition as to compel some hon. Members of the party opposite in Committee to refrain from voting for their own Minister and their own Bill. Such was the value of the contribution of my hon. and learned Friend. But, after all, he is only human. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no."] I thought that I had all the House with me in saying that, but apparently I have not.
My hon. and learned Friend is a very human being, always ready to listen to pleas from this side, always willing to take on additional burdens and always ready to put down Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He is an indefatigable worker for the good of the House. It would not be right, would it, just because—I was going to say a horse, but that would be entirely inappropriate—my hon. and learned Friend is so willing to go on in order to enable the House to understand fully the technical and detailed Schedule to saddle this burden on him knowing that he has not only been fully occupied for days and weeks but that he has been on his feet since half-past ten this morning. He was engaged, as I have said, for the whole morning in helping on that most technical Measure, the Trustee Investments Bill. It would not be right to call upon him to make a further contribution—

however helpful it might be to hon. Members—at this time.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will realise that we are absolutely correct in saying that the best way of getting a Bill of this kind—a technical Measure like this; and I refer in particular to the Schedule—discussed and disposed of—discussed, understood and disposed of—is to approach it when one is capable of understanding all the nuances and technical details involved.
The right hon. Gentleman may be able to do this kind of thing with a tired mind, but the rest of us, and those with, perhaps, professional training in these matters, need a fresh mind, and it is our duty to our constituents to approach the subject with a fresh mind. Our constituents sent us here, not to argue in a fuzzy way at one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning but to bring clarity and light into the discussion and so enable the best possible legislation to get on the Statute Book.
I have no doubt that the proposed Schedule is drawn in a most satisfactory, clear and intelligible manner, but it may be the Government have different ideas about it. They may want to improve the drafting or suggest variations, or do one or either of those or other things about it. They will naturally wish to have our arguments put to them clearly, will wish to consider them and, perhaps, arrange for a suitable time to put down Amendments to deal with it—because they have opportunities to put down Amendments when they require to do so.
It is impossible to say with certainty that the proposed Schedule will be accepted in precisely its present form, but one can say that if we start to discuss the subject at a normal hour, when we are fresh and have not had to deal with the problems that many of us have had to deal with today—and particularly when my hon. and learned Friend has not had to concentrate for the last thirteen hours on matters of great technical complexity—it is quite clear that we would be far more likely to come to a speedy, satisfactory and helpful conclusion than if we start the consideration now.
I myself am at the service of the Minister. I will do whatever he wants to do. If he wants to go on all through the night, I am perfectly happy to stay here


and listen to his arguments. I do not think that that is the quickest way of doing business, but I am most anxious to be available and to listen to him whenever opportunity offers. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to listen to him all through the night, but, if he wishes to do that, if we are to start on the consideration of this Bill now, it is inconceivable that the proposed Schedule could be satisfactorily disposed of under three, four or five hours.
I have no idea to what extent my hon. Friends would be able to understand it and satisfy their constituents that they had voted in the right way. Nobody will take the responsibility of voting on a complicated matter like this unless they do understand it. We all face our constituents regularly. With Easter approaching, no doubt many of us will be meeting them in the next 48 hours, and it is natural that we should want to be able to satisfy them—

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is now twenty-five minutes past eleven. If the hon. Member, who is making a very good speech, continues very much longer the Scottish Members will miss their trains to Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Diamond: As I am on my feet, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I may presume to answer on behalf of my Scottish friends by saying that whether they miss their trains or not is a matter of no consideration to them. They are anxious, as they always are, to give matters of this nature their fullest consideration. If one is tempted to draw categories, may I, as a non-Scot, pay my tribute to the Scottish hon. Members who, as a class, are always ready to pay the closest attention to the business on hand.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: My hon. Friend has to some extent taken the complimentary words to the Scottish Members out of the mouths of the Scottish Members—I say that in all modesty. In fact, I am sure that he will be assured that he is, apart from the compliments altogether, speaking for the Scottish Members, who are in a very high proportion at this moment and not unwilling

to stay up all night, but that we think it unreasonable to keep our Welsh and English colleagues here as well.

Mr. Diamond: It is clear that there are many further important arguments to be adduced on this Motion, and it would be wrong of me to delay my hon. Friends who wish to make their points. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) reminds me that he has completely misunderstood the approach of hon. Members on this side of the House to these matters. He has suggested that we did not co-operate to the fullest possible extent in discussing the previous Measure in the shortest possible time. But let him consider my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), for example, A week or so ago my hon. Friend made not a lengthy speech but a speech which might be described as not being short.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: An intervention.

Mr. Diamond: An intervention of adequate proportions. It covered something like 2¾ hours. My hon. Friend also intervened on the previous Measure, and occupied minutes—seconds almost. He used the greatest possible self-discipline. He was anxious that the matter should be proceeded with as quickly as possible. He was anxious that the Government supporters should be allowed to go home as soon as possible and that, whatever else might happen, this matter should not be discussed at a time of night when hon. Members were not fresh and ready to cope with all the difficulties. Because of these anxieties he disciplined himself and spoke for seconds only, demonstrating that his consideration for hon. Members was far greater than his desire to express himself adequately on the Bill.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to be armed in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the paper object that the hon. Member is holding is a lethal weapon.

Mr. Diamond: I am glad to see that the Leader of the House has now entered the Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,


hear."] I thank him for his courtesy. I am sure that he is anxious to help the House in clearing up a point which affects the Minister of Transport. I am sure that he is anxious also to see, as I am, that the Bill shall be discussed in the most effective way and that we shall reach the end of the discussion in the shortest possible time by starting it at a time when we are all fresh in mind and able to deal with it expeditiously and properly. In the circumstances, I am the last to wish to detain the Leader of the House.

11.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): It is all very well saying "Welcome" to me. I spend the greater part of my waking life in the House. It just happened that I had an engagement the nature of which I have explained to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and which I could not miss.
I should now like to intervene in this debate. What has happened is that I made some statements earlier on about the nature of the business which we were likely to achieve tonight. I indicated that we were not expecting to go very low down the batting order, because we have put a great many Orders on the Order Paper. I had expected—and I think I had good reasons for so doing—that we could go a little lower than the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill. I understand on the best authority from the right hon. Gentleman that that was a misunderstanding and that that had not been understood by the Opposition. That is what I understand to be the case.
We on our side were quite sure that we would get this next Order, the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill, which it is rather important to get because the work has to be proceeded with, and we are such rapid workers that we must keep our legislation in line with the physical activities which we undertake at Hyde Park. It is, therefore, important that the work of the contractors should be equalled by the work of the legislators, and we must not get behind.
It appears to me from information that I have received, which is always of the best quality, that if we were to press this matter too much tonight we

might not make very great progress. In the circumstances, I think the best thing to do is to acknowledge that there has been a misunderstanding and that we should take this Order on another occasion when I do not think it will be regarded as unduly controversial. The new arrangements at Hyde Park are beneficial not only to London's population but to mankind as a whole, and I think therefore that we must not hold them up. Therefore, I hope that if we do take this at an hour of the day which is more suitable we may have the co-operation of the Opposition. In the circumstances, I hope that we shall agree that we shall not proceed further tonight with the business but that when we do take it again at a reasonable hour of the day it will be proceeded with without undue delay. I think that is the best solution because this arises out of a genuine misunderstanding.

Mr. G. Brown: There are some things I should like to say before we ask leave to withdraw the Motion. We are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for coming down to the House, I am sure at some considerable inconvenience and difficulty. Although, as he himself indicated, it is always part of the business here that one demands to know where the Leader of the House is if he is not here and welcomes him when he arrives, we of course all understand that he has duties other than being available to us when we want him. I hope there will be no suspicion anywhere in the House that we do not regard him as being very responsive to the calls of the House when he needs to be here, and I make no complaint at all of the fact that he was away somewhere else.
There is something he said which I should like to clear up, and that was his frequent reference to a misunderstanding. It is, of course, not the business of the Opposition to facilitate the business of the Government, especially at a moment when the Government have chosen to challenge the Opposition on areas of controversy which we feel very strongly about indeed. The use of the word "misunderstanding" might in itself give rise to misunderstanding.
However, it is obvious that certain of the Orders of the Day will require a degree of discussion, and we are all of us, with our greater or lesser experience in the House, capable of assessing roughly what that is going to mean in terms of Parliamentary time. We on this side of the House feel that we had done all that was required of the Opposition today, not only in seeing to it that discussion on the Motion about the Easter Adjournment did not go on beyond a certain time, but that the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill was obtained by the Government by a reasonable time. Any idea that we had to facilitate further business of the Government tonight really was out of the question. However, we do not need to make a song and dance about it.
I am very willing on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends to withdraw—[Interruption.] I have much less experience of acting as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition than has the right hon. Gentleman as acting as Leader of the House. He gets a lot of advice. I must be allowed a modicum of it. I am not very clear whether I am supposed to withdraw the Motion or not.

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order. Was not the Leader of the House misleading the House when he suggested that my right hon. Friend should withdraw the Motion? Would not the proper procedure be for my right hon. Friend to press the Motion and thereby achieve what the Leader of the House in fact desires?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was not misleading the House. It is a question of what step the House wishes to take.

Mr. Brown: Having now received a good deal of advice, I think I am now clear what it is I have to do. What I

want to get quite clear is that in some way we shall shortly reach the desired end, which is that the Motion which we have moved will not be pressed. I understand that after that the Government will move a Motion which will achieve the same result, namely, that no more business will be taken tonight.
I only want to make it perfectly plain that we shall of course discuss the Bill, as we shall discuss every other item of business which the Government bring forward, with as much attention to detail and to the public interest as the public interest requires. We cannot undertake to do less; we cannot undertake to let business go through with less discussion than that; and, of course, we shall not give any business any more attention than that, which is the course we have followed. Having said that, I leave my right hon. Friend who moved the Motion to advise the House on what he thinks the House ought to do with the Motion.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In view of what the Leader of the House said, and on the understanding that if there was any misunderstanding it was misunderstanding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and not on our part—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will repeat it. On the understanding that if there was any misunderstanding it was misunderstanding on the part of the Government, not On our side—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Once more I will say it again. On the understanding that if there was a misunderstanding it was on the part of the Government and not on our part, and because this will enable us to discuss the Bill at a time of day when it can be properly reported and our constituents can understand what we are doing, I hope that my hon. Friends will agree to the course that has been suggested.

Question put and agreed to.

Further consideration adjourned.

RURAL TRANSPORT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: I welcome this opportunity of drawing attention to the Report of Professor Jack's Committee on Rural Bus Services. This is by no means the first occasion on which I have drawn attention to the problems of rural transport, and during the past ten years I have consistently urged upon the Government that action should be taken to improve public transport facilities in the rural areas. I have raised the subject so frequently in recent years that I am in danger of becoming a real bore on the subject and hon. Members may well think that I have rural transport on the brain. Nevertheless, I make no apology for raising the subject once again, more particularly for raising it now that we have the Report of the Committee. The Government and the country have all the information which is required for dealing with this vitally important subject concerning the well-being of the countryside.
After a good deal of delay and unnecessary dilly-dallying eighteen months ago, the then Minister of Transport agreed to set up that Committee to look into the whole problem of rural buses and to make recommendations to ensure that an adequate public transport service was made available in the rural areas. That Committee has now made its Report, and all that the rural areas want is action on the part of the Government.
I readily admit that unfortunately the Report of the Committee is not unanimous in its recommendations as to the action which should be taken and the form of assistance which should be given to rural transport. The Committee, was, however, unanimous in saying that hardship was being caused in the rural areas by the breakdown of the public transport system. Indeed, the whole Committee agreed that special steps should be taken, and taken urgently, to deal with the problem.
Those who have studied the subject during the post-war period would, I think, agree that it was scarcely necessary for the Government to set up a

Committee to look into the problem and to discover the damage and the hardship which the breakdown of the public transport facilities has imposed on the rural areas, both to the life of whole communities in the more isolated parts of Britain and to family life. The breakdown of transport, the disappearance of both trains and buses, is causing obvious hardship in the rural areas. It is accelerating the depopulation of the countryside and encouraging the drift from the land into the towns.
In short, life in the countryside for those without private means of transport is becoming impossible. It is a commentary on life in the second half of the twentieth century that it is far easier to go from London to Tokyo or to New York than to go from one end of my constituency to the other. The lack of action by the Government during the past ten years whilst the situation has steadily gone from bad to worse just does not make sense.
Obviously the Government want to see a flourishing countryside. They realise that that is in the national interest. I am sure that the Government appreciate that today 5 per cent. of our workers produce 60 per cent. of our food supplies and directly or indirectly, by one means or another, every one of the public utility services in the countryside is helped by some form of financial subsidy. Whether it be the Post Office, water supplies, agriculture itself, sewerage services, electricity or telephones, every one of them, by one means or another, is given financial assistance. They are all supported and subsidised, and transport alone of the public services is left to flounder and fade out.
This is sheer idiocy, for without some form of public transport obviously the drift from the land will continue at an ever-faster pace. It is bound to accelerate. More and more branch lines will have to be discontinued and the Government will find that they themselves will have to find more and more money to subsidise the other essential services.
One of the fascinating aspects of this problem is that the Government cannot escape in the end from financial responsibility for it. If the Government refuse financial help to the public transport services in the rural areas the result will be that the bus services, along with the


railways, will disappear. Much of the population will go too, though some people will linger on and they will cost a great deal more money than they cost today in the provision of school transport, health and hospital services and other essential services.
In Northumberland alone it is reckoned that if all the unremunerative rural services are withdrawn it will cost the education committee thousands of pounds a year more to run additional school buses. The same goes for the health and hospital services. Therefore, in the long run the Government have no chance of escaping their financial responsibility. The sooner they are prepared to face this problem in realistic fashion the better for all concerned.
At the moment there are good grounds for suggesting that the Government are in danger of breaking faith with the countryside, and I, for one, am not prepared to support them in doing that. Tonight I do not propose to go into the whys and wherefores of the recommendations in the Jack Committee's Report. It is up to the Government and Ministers to decide for themselves the best methods of assistance. All I ask is that the Government should act, and act quickly.
I believe that the Government are in some danger of getting their priorities wrong. It seems that they are quite prepared to find millions of pounds to support the Cunard Company and to subsidise luxury trans-Atlantic travel. There is no difficulty in finding money to build trans-Atlantic liners but when it comes to finding the very limited sums which are essential to assist rural transport the door is slammed in the face of the rural community.
This really is not good enough. People in the rural areas have been very patient in this past decade while they have seen public transport facilities steadily deteriorating. But their patience has been tried long enough. It is not in the national interest for there to be a complete breakdown in rural transport. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend can tell us of some change of attitude on the part of the Government. I would like to hope that there will be some assurance that the report of the Jack Committee will be implemented in the

near future. It is for that reason that I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tonight.

11.50 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) said in opening this brief debate on rural transport, he has for a long time shown a considerable interest in the subject. I remember hearing him on one or two occasions in the past when he was debating in particular the problems of those who live in rural areas but whose bus services are inadequate. The concern that he shows in this matter is shared by all those other hon. Members—and I count myself among them—who represent rural areas.
To night he has sought to deal briefly—because this is a short debate—with some problems with which we are faced, and nothing that I want to say tonight is intended to minimise the seriousness of those problems. Indeed, it was because the Government felt considerable concern about the difficulties of rural bus services, in particular, that we decided, in September, 1959, to set up this Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Jack. Everyone who has read the Committee's Report will agree that it conducted an exhaustive inquiry and gave the whole subject detailed consideration. It went into a great many factors, and I think it right that it took adequate time to carry out its Investigation. There has been a little criticism of the fact that it has taken a year and a half to carry through its inquiry and produce its Report, but I am sure that it was right to make a good job of it, because a speedy report might not have been so valuable to the Government and the country. I would like to reiterate the thanks expressed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport last week—the thanks of the Minister and the Ministry to Professor Jack and his colleagues for their work in this connection.
It might be helpful if I briefly summarise the main findings of the Jack Committee and the main remedies it suggests. Dealing with the findings, it suggests that the problem is caused chiefly


by the growth of private transport in recent years and the changing social habits of rural populations. As my hon. Friend has said, it also finds that these changes have caused hardship to some people—a comparatively small number, but hardship nonetheless. It also finds that they have caused inconvenience to a rather greater number, and the Committee concludes that these hardships and inconvenience are sufficient to justify special steps being taken to put things right.
The remedies the Committee recommends are major and minor. The major remedy is the proposal that direct financial assistance should be provided towards the running of rural bus services, partly from Exchequer sources and partly local funds, and that the money should be administered principally through county councils. The Committee rejected the proposal, which has often been ventilated, that the fuel tax on rural bus services should be completely remitted by the Exchequer. It finds as a fact that this would give far too much assistance to the larger operators, would be imprecise in its incidence, and would be a once-for-all operation. It is only fair to add that there was a minority report by three of the members of the Committee disagreeing with this conclusion and holding that remission of fuel tax was the proper major remedy for the Government to undertake.
There were four minor remedies which the Committee mentioned. The first is that proper use should be made of the school bus services. The second is that more use should be made of buses for carrying parcels. The third is that there should be greater co-ordination of bus and mail services. Fourthly, the Committee felt that there was some scope for fares increases on some of the marginal services.
The House will appreciate that these are weighty recommendations and that they need a great deal of consideration. The Report was published on 15th March and it has therefore been in the hands of the public for just under a fortnight. I think that it is far too soon for firm views to have crystallised on the Committee's findings and recommendations. We in the Government have some slight advantage; we had the opportunity of seeing the text of the Report a little earlier than had the public, because it had to be

printed and distributed. Discussions between the various departments affected by the matter have already taken place, and we are pressing on with them.
It is quite likely that at a fairly early stage we shall have to consider consultation with a number of outside interests on the Committee's findings and recommendations. I think that this is necessary because already certain bodies seem to have gone on record with rather strong views, and these may need to be fully investigated. For example, within 24 hours of publication of the Report the British Omnibuses Public Relations Committee issued a statement to the Press using some fairly strong language about the Report. The Committee described it as "incomprehensible" and its recommendations as being "manifestly unworkable". The Public Relations Committee spoke of the Committee's "complete lack of appreciation of the essential basis and structure of the bus industry" and went on to say that the majority of the Committee were "unable to see the wood for the trees", and much in like vein. It may be—and I hope that it is the case—that in time this body, which is important and influential, will wish to take a somewhat milder line than in this initial statement, particularly when it and the members whom it represents have been able to give the Report the fuller study which I think that it deserves. In any event, we have to allow a certain amount of time first for the Report to be thoroughly examined. We must also consider in some detail the proposals, their implications and—this is extremely important—their repercussions in other fields.
As I said, we shall probably have to consult a number of interests before we can finally announce our views, and in this process it is right that we should await the general reaction from the public, and the views which members of the public wish to bring to our notice on the wisdom or lack of wisdom, as the case may be, of the Committee's suggestions.
My hon. Friend expressed the hope that tonight I might be in a position to announce the Government's views on the Report. I am afraid that, for reasons which I have just explained, that is not possible. He will remember the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister


of Transport gave to his Question on 15th March. Beyond what my right hon. Friend then said, I am afraid that I cannot go tonight. The only additional information which I can give him is that we shall reach our conclusions on this matter as speedily as we can. We are aware that this is a big and difficult problem, and we are aware that it has

been going on for some time and in some respects and some places may be getting worse. We have therefore just as much interest in reaching a solution as has any hon. Member. I am afraid that that is all that I can say tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.